Going to see it on Sunday. I tried to Christmas night but the latest showing was booked when we got there.
Django Unchained, new movie directed by Quentin Tarantino
-
-
Saw it. Loved every second of it.
Easily my favorite Tarantino film since Pulp Fiction. The story, the cast, the music, everything was fantastic.
Best part though was DiCaprio. Every second he was on screen was utterly delightful. You could tell how much he loved playing this role.
Also,
! I like that this was straightforward and linear. It was a nice change of pace. This is also the first Tarantino film that has ever actually caused me to be emotional. When Waltz died I was really effing sad, and I teared up when he finally freed his Broomhilda.
Also, this was really fucking funny. I laughed my ass off so many times.
Another great film by Tarantino. If the rumors are true and this does end up being his last film, I'll be okay with that.
-
Never heard those rumors of this being his last film. As much as I would like him to keep making movies, both Inglorious Basterds and this movie were utterly fantastic so I suppose he wants to quit while he's ahead, which I entirely understand.
-
DiCaprio was amazing
! You know someone has done a great job playing a villain when an entire theatre cheers when he gets shot.
-
Just saw the movie today. Really damn good.
That being said…
! Does anyone else feel the last 20-30 minutes were kind of unnecessary? I mean, I know he still had to rescue Broomhilda and get revenge on Steven, but I feel that could have been done during the first shootout. Calvin was already dead and the only thing that happens in those last 20 minutes is Django blows away more white people who we don't really care about that much.
! Also, in retrospect, I'm not sure I get Schulz's plan. I guess the idea was that he didn't think Calvin would sell Broomhilda, so he baited him with the Mandingo fighter. But then it looks like Calvin would have gladly sold her. So why couldn't he have just bought her in the first place? Maybe under the guise of, "Hey, I'm German, and I'd love to have a slave who speaks German."
! Aside from that, awesome movie. Great performances from all involved (it's movies like this that make me so glad Leo got out of being typecast as dreamy romantic leads). The violence was bloody and satisfying. Oh, and the KKK scene was hysterical. -
Just saw the movie today. Really damn good.
That being said…
! Does anyone else feel the last 20-30 minutes were kind of unnecessary? I mean, I know he still had to rescue Broomhilda and get revenge on Steven, but I feel that could have been done during the first shootout. Calvin was already dead and the only thing that happens in those last 20 minutes is Django blows away more white people who we don't really care about that much.
! Also, in retrospect, I'm not sure I get Schulz's plan. I guess the idea was that he didn't think Calvin would sell Broomhilda, so he baited him with the Mandingo fighter. But then it looks like Calvin would have gladly sold her. So why couldn't he have just bought her in the first place? Maybe under the guise of, "Hey, I'm German, and I'd love to have a slave who speaks German."
! Aside from that, awesome movie. Great performances from all involved (it's movies like this that make me so glad Leo got out of being typecast as dreamy romantic leads). The violence was bloody and satisfying. Oh, and the KKK scene was hysterical.In response to your first question:
! > Does anyone else feel the last 20-30 minutes were kind of unnecessary? I mean, I know he still had to rescue Broomhilda and get revenge on Steven, but I feel that could have been done during the first shootout. Calvin was already dead and the only thing that happens in those last 20 minutes is Django blows away more white people who we don't really care about that much.
! The near to last scene where Django was bargaining with the Aussies slave traders was e****ssential to the progress of Django's character. In the beginning we were introduced to an illiterate Django who wasn't even familiar with the concept of bounties and bounty hunters. Not to mention that Dr. Shultz always acted as the brains of the operation, being the agent we relied on to get the duo out of a jam.
! However, Django showed, using is new found competence of making bargains and sweet talking folks, that he was able to use his brain to get himself out of a jam.
! Finally, that scene brought the whole "Always keep the Bounty poster of your first hit for good luck" to full circle. Without that scene Dr.Shultz words would have been for nothing. So yes! These last 20 minutes or so were needed for the sake of developing Django's character. -
! The near to last scene where Django was bargaining with the Aussies slave traders was e****ssential to the progress of Django's character. In the beginning we were introduced to an illiterate Django who wasn't even familiar with the concept of bounties and bounty hunters. Not to mention that Dr. Shultz always acted as the brains of the operation, being the agent we relied on to get the duo out of a jam.
! However, Django showed, using is new found competence of making bargains and sweet talking folks, that he was able to use his brain to get himself out of a jam.! All right, yes, I can understand Django's character coming full circle by being able to take care of himself, but I actually felt the Aussies fell for his trick a bit too easily. Even if they are supposed to be kinda dimwitted.
! 1. Even if they could the drop on the supposed outlaws, are they really going to risk their necks like that, even for $12,000? These guys are slave traders, not professional bounty hunters.
! 2. Even if they have reasonable confirmation that Django is a bounty hunter and even if he does have that wanted poster, there's no confirmation that the outlaws on the wanted poster were even there (was this explained? I think I remember them asking how they knew his story was true?)
! 3. Again, even if he's a bounty hunter and they're willing to believe the outlaws are back at the plantation, Django is still about to be sent to hell on earth, so of course he's going to do whatever he can to get out. And they just up and gave him a gun? To the guy they believe to be a professional bounty hunter?! Finally, that scene brought the whole "Always keep the Bounty poster of your first hit for good luck" to full circle. Without that scene Dr.Shultz words would have been for nothing. So yes! These last 20 minutes or so were needed for the sake of developing Django's character.
! Hmm, I actually missed that part entirely.
-
With Nobodyman's views on some parts.
! I believe Dr. Schulz's plan was to make sure to get Broomhilda cheap and not by the Mandango instead of just making the offer straight up for Broomhilda so they didn't have to spend that much money on her.
! And I also think the last 20-30 minutes were unnecessary, but for different reasons.
! I know it's Tarantino's style for ultra violence, and I do realize there are scenes that show Schulz has a guilty conscience, but that shootout near the end was dumb. All Schultz needed to do was shake someone's hand. That's all. I would like to think someone that's been in the bounty hunting business, along with someone as smart as Schulz, would have just not reacted the way he did which led to the finale. Sure, I get thanks to that Django got to finish developing as a character, I just wish it didn't have to come at the expense of such a filmsy scene (for me).
! That said, I really enjoyed this movie. That scene above was probably the only big thing I had a problem with other than minor scenes that could've been shortened to make the movie tighter. Like Nex said, it's so straight forward unlike Tarantino's normal style (I've only seen Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Inglorious Basterds though). Scenes were fun, and all the characters were great in this, except Broomhilda screamed way too much at the beginning.
! I also like listening to Spill reviews, and while I didn't agree with their review, I did decide to count the use of the n-word thanks to them. I sadly lost count because that climax scene gripped my attention so much it made me lost count, but my estimate would be around 85-90, and that would be a conservative estimate. I doubt it was over 115-120 though. -
! Also, in retrospect, I'm not sure I get Schulz's plan. I guess the idea was that he didn't think Calvin would sell Broomhilda, so he baited him with the Mandingo fighter. But then it looks like Calvin would have gladly sold her. So why couldn't he have just bought her in the first place? Maybe under the guise of, "Hey, I'm German, and I'd love to have a slave who speaks German."
! He was operating under the assumption that if he just approached him by saying that Candie wanted to by Broomhilda, that would give Candie the upper hand, and thus he could charge whatever he wanted. By having Candie operating under the assumption that he was interested in the fighter, Candie would charge him a ton for that,and if he expressed mild interest in Broomhilda,he could get her for a cheaper price. And that's what happened, which is why he proposed that they come back in five days with lawyers, since it was such a large sum of money. The plan was that they get Broomhilda then and then leave under the guise they'd be returning in five days, but of course they never would.
-
With Nobodyman's views on some parts.
! I believe Dr. Schulz's plan was to make sure to get Broomhilda cheap and not by the Mandango instead of just making the offer straight up for Broomhilda so they didn't have to spend that much money on her.
! And I also think the last 20-30 minutes were unnecessary, but for different reasons.
! I know it's Tarantino's style for ultra violence, and I do realize there are scenes that show Schulz has a guilty conscience, but that shootout near the end was dumb. All Schultz needed to do was shake someone's hand. That's all. I would like to think someone that's been in the bounty hunting business, along with someone as smart as Schulz, would have just not reacted the way he did which led to the finale. Sure, I get thanks to that Django got to finish developing as a character, I just wish it didn't have to come at the expense of such a filmsy scene (for me).
! That said, I really enjoyed this movie. That scene above was probably the only big thing I had a problem with other than minor scenes that could've been shortened to make the movie tighter. Like Nex said, it's so straight forward unlike Tarantino's normal style (I've only seen Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Inglorious Basterds though). Scenes were fun, and all the characters were great in this, except Broomhilda screamed way too much at the beginning.
! I also like listening to Spill reviews, and while I didn't agree with their review, I did decide to count the use of the n-word thanks to them. I sadly lost count because that climax scene gripped my attention so much it made me lost count, but my estimate would be around 85-90, and that would be a conservative estimate. I doubt it was over 115-120 though.Here's how I see the whole Dr.Schultz thing:
! @Gizmo:
! > I know it's Tarantino's style for ultra violence, and I do realize there are scenes that show Schulz has a guilty conscience, but that shootout near the end was dumb. All Schultz needed to do was shake someone's hand. That's all. I would like to think someone that's been in the bounty hunting business, along with someone as smart as Schulz, would have just not reacted the way he did which led to the finale. Sure, I get thanks to that Django got to finish developing as a character, I just wish it didn't have to come at the expense of such a filmsy scene (for me).
! I believe there was more to it than Dr.Shultz losing out on an ego race. Right before their altercation, Dr. Shultz had flashbacks of the slave that was mauled by those dogs. Now throughout the film Dr.Shultz has been built up as a character who was slowly caving into the atrocities of slavery.
! When he asked Calvin about:
"would the hero from the Three Musketeers had approved of what happened with that slave?",
! he wasn't just asking Calvin but was simultaneously reflecting on his own actions (or rather lack of actions of saving that slave).
! Dr. Shultz striking his last gun shot into Calvin's chest was an act of justice. It was his way of "shooting slavery" right in the heart. -
Here's how I see the whole Dr.Schultz thing
! I believe there was more to it than Dr.Shultz losing out on an ego race. Right before their altercation, Dr. Shultz had flashbacks of the slave that was mauled by those dogs. Now throughout the film Dr.Shultz has been built up as a character who was slowly caving into the atrocities of slavery.
! When he asked Calvin about:
"would the hero from the Three Musketeers had approved of what happened with that slave?",
! he wasn't just asking Calvin but was simultaneously reflecting on his own actions (or rather lack of actions).
! Dr. Shultz striking his last gun shot into Calvin's chest was an act of justice. It was his way of "shooting slavery" right in the heart.! Naw, I recognize Schultz was doing that for his sake of justice, but you would think a bounty hunter would be used to atrocious crimes, or at least become more numb to inhumane acts given his job. Django even pointed out how this seemed hypocritical given he made Django shoot a bad guy in front of his son.
! And even if it was an act of passion, I just feel like someone as calm, smart, and collected as Schultz would've had a better plan than that, but I get tensions rise and people aren't perfect 24/7 etc. -
! Naw, I recognize Schultz was doing that for his sake of justice, but you would think a bounty hunter would be used to atrocious crimes, or at least become more numb to inhumane acts given his job. Django even pointed out how this seemed hypocritical given he made Django shoot a bad guy in front of his son.
! And even if it was an act of passion, I just feel like someone as calm, smart, and collected as Schultz would've had a better plan than that, but I get tensions rise and people aren't perfect 24/7 etc.Even so…
! > But you would think a bounty hunter would be used to atrocious crimes, or at least become more numb to inhumane acts given his job.
! Indeed he has been exposed to atrocities but were they ever to the extent of slavery? Bounty hunting focuses on the act of murdering those who've committed crimes. Slavery on the other hand is an act of unjustly forcing an entire race of people into an act of humiliating servitude with dire punishments.
! This IS a death of Guilty vs. Innocent Issue
! Slavery would have opened Dr. Shultz to a whole entire different world from what he'd seen as a bounty hunter. It was made apparent that the concepts of slavery were too much even for him it hence his desperate actions to "set things right":- wanting to help Django find his wife 2) Offering to reimburse Candy his $500 for the runaway slave. These just to name a few
! > Django even pointed out how this seemed hypocritical given he made Django shoot a bad guy in front of his son.
! This just adds more fuel to the fire! This man has shot criminals in front of their children. What else could scar such a man? For such a man to go out of his way to "set things right", slavery must have been a far more abominable thing. That's why his actions as a professional weren't as rational as his other missions.
! For the first time in a LONG time, he's finally confronted something that even he could have not look passed -
I saw it today and I loved it. I don't think it was too long or too bloody it was just enough of everything and done in such style with great performances I have no faults or complaints. I hate DiCaprio, he's normally a terrible actor and i can see DiCaprio in whoever he's playing, just different moods basically but i thought he did a great job here. I'm probably going to see it again.
also tarentino remains a terrible actor.
third edit..the soundtrack was perfect..i ugh this movie so great
-
Even so…
! Indeed he has been exposed to atrocities but were they ever to the extent of slavery? Bounty hunting focuses on the act of murdering those who've committed crimes. Slavery on the other hand is an act of unjustly forcing an entire race of people into an act of humiliating servitude with dire punishments.
! This IS a death of Guilty vs. Innocent Issue
! Slavery would have opened Dr. Shultz to a whole entire different world from what he'd seen as a bounty hunter. It was made apparent that the concepts of slavery were too much even for him it hence his desperate actions to "set things right":- wanting to help Django find his wife 2) Offering to reimburse Candy his $500 for the runaway slave. These just to name a few
! This just adds more fuel to the fire! This man has shot criminals in front of their children. What else could scar such a man? For such a man to go out of his way to "set things right", slavery must have been a far more abominable thing. That's why his actions as a professional weren't as rational as his other missions.
! For the first time in a LONG time, he's finally confronted something that even he could have not look passedApparently we were both wrong. At least according to Tarantino. The interview covers Nobodyman's question about the plan as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/quentin-tarantino-django-unchained_n_2340987.html
! Candie's comments were really speaking to the audience in that case. It seems to really be just a matter of pride for Dr. Schultz.
! @tarantino:
! > I know what you're saying, but, honestly, a lot of directors would never say something along those lines. But you're saying that, in this story, Schultz is a character who makes wrong decisions.
He's working from the wrong assumptions. Schultz is so egotistical and is such a control freak, he cannot allow himself to be put in the non-power position of every situation. It's why he ends up getting killed in the first place! They've had it; they got her.That said, I don't doubt that slavery played a factor, and I am in the camp that believes that sometimes even authors write scenes that can be interpreted in ways they haven't even conceived of, though normally I like sticking to how the writer conceived the scene.
-
Apparently we were both wrong. At least according to Tarantino. The interview covers Nobodyman's question about the plan as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/quentin-tarantino-django-unchained_n_2340987.html
! Candie's comments were really speaking to the audience in that case. It seems to really be just a matter of pride for Dr. Schultz.
! That said, I don't doubt that slavery played a factor, and I am in the camp that believes that sometimes even authors write scenes that can be interpreted in ways they haven't even conceived of, though normally I like sticking to how the writer conceived the scene.An insightful read indeed. Thank you for sharing. I would have never had guessed "that character's" reasoning to turn out the way Tarantino explained it. I actually like this interpretation even more. Hell, it's the real one after all.
Furthermore, I just gained even MORE respect for Tarantino for actually taking the initiative to make an appointment with a critic to discuss the movie.
-
Finally saw it.
It was so fucking awesome. Christoph Waltz….amazing. Leonardo DiCaprio....amazing. Samuel L. Jackson....My God....Samuel L. Jackson.
He almost stole every scene he was in. He played the role of the old, uppity house slave to complete perfection.And as someone mentioned earlier, the music is phenomenal.
-
I have not seen Jackie Brown. And I was wrong, Death Proof is my least favorite Tarantino movie. That movie was terrible. As of right now:
1. Inglorious Basterds
2. Django Unchained
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. Kill Bill Part 1
6. Kill Bill Part 2
7. Death ProofHaven't watched Jackie Brown.
You forgot to mention Four Rooms his part was pure awesomeness.
-
You forgot to mention Four Rooms his part was pure awesomeness.
I really like Four Rooms.
I had no plans to go see this movie, til last night. Last minute a friend called and within 20 minutes I was in a movie theater seat. Not knowing anything about this movie besides the Tarantino name and something about slavery.
Overall it was a hoot. Really enjoyed it. I probably laughed too much during action sequences, enough for people in front of me to turn around. I really enjoyed a lot of the characters, but I'll be in the minority here but… I sorta kinda only mildly liked Samuel L. Jackson's character. He was a little too overtop and took me out of the film a couple of times when he started saying modern day terms and phrases. Again, probably the only one.
Really that was my only complaint.
Shultz was my favorite character.
-
I can't believe I just heard of this movie a few minutes ago. I really loved Pulp Fiction, and I'm looking forward to seeing this. Never saw Inglorious Bastards though. From what I heard, it didn't really seem like my kind of movie.
-
Django Unchained is a superb film. I am excited to see Jamie Foxx in the sequel to the Amazing Spider-Man. Christoph Waltz as Doctor Schultz is a delight onscreen. Leo DiCap pleasantly surprised and Samuel L. Jackson entertained as expected. Kerry Washington played Broomhilda with an appropriate poise and the chemistry between her and Foxx serves as the crux to the romance between the two. Enjoyed it this past Friday with the misses and that marked the beginning of The 3 Tarantino Film weekend. Watched Inglourious Basterds and enjoyed the hell out of it. Then closed our Sunday evening with the sultry Miss Jackie Brown.
While having not seen Four Rooms and Death Proof, here's my preference
1. Jackie Brown (Watched this evening.)
2. Pulp Fiction (Watched Black Friday)
3. Django Unchained (Watched this past Friday)
4. Inglourious Basterds (Watched this past Saturday)
5. Kill Bill vol. 2 (Rewatched last summer/Watched 8 years ago)
6. Kill Bill vol. 1 ("/")
7. Reservoir Dogs (Watched the Saturday following Black Friday)However, this list is a revolving list. Having only seen a handful for the first time recently, something like Kill Bill vol. 2, which I adore very much, is also one film that I am very familiar with. That being said, this order is not 1>2 but my preference of Tarantino's body of work.
-
I saw an advert for it the other day.
Doesn't really look like my kind of thing…
...but at least I know where that gif that's been in a certain members signature for a while now comes from. -
Would you consider this a movie for the theaters? Although my perspective upon reading this thread has changed my opinion I thought it was just more of a tasteless varient of Inglorious bastards. My uncle said it was good but not as good as Inglorious.
-
I saw an advert for it the other day.
Doesn't really look like my kind of thing…
...but at least I know where that gif that's been in a certain members signature for a while now comes from.I'd give it a watch. Seeing Leonardo DeCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson play the Antagonists is a rare treat that can't be missed. Superb acting all around in this movie.
-
Would you consider this a movie for the theaters? Although my perspective upon reading this thread has changed my opinion I thought it was just more of a tasteless varient of Inglorious bastards. My uncle said it was good but not as good as Inglorious.
Definitely a movie for theaters. Especially so you can hear the fantastic music full blast.
And while the similarities are there, I would say this is more tasteful than IB, and, I think, it works better on an emotional level. Here I was attached to the characters, even the villains, and invested in the story. I know everyone likes to label Jackie Brown as Tarantino's "mature film," but I'd give that label to Django, simply because it still feels like a Tarantino film, unlike Jackie Brown.
-
Okay, I saw Jackie Brown for the first time last week and so now having seen all of Tarantino's films (aside from Deathproof and Four Rooms) I would rank them thusly.
1. Pulp Fiction
2. Kill Bill 1 & 2
3. Django Unchained
4. Inglourious Basterds
5. Reservoir Dogs
6. Jackie Brown -
Okay so, Django Unchained is amazing. I found it to be full of energy, which was unfortunately unlike my theater ("they're saying that word in a historical context omg!!" yeah, but it's nothing like Quentin himself saying "Dead N____ Storage" in Pulp Fiction, which could have been totally excluded. That's when theater wariness is warranted.)
I thought about being in the "too long" camp, because those feelings were definitely arising around the end. But then I realized we wouldn't get several awesome moments such as…
! Django shooting in the penis the man who tried to make him impotent in the most horrific way, Quentin Tarantino himself fuckin' blowing up, and Stephen being blown up along with Candyland–although he was a tragic victim of slavery (despicable nonetheless), he had to go with down with the Candieland portion of the institution.
The Klan scene was unexpectedly way hilarious–couldn't believe how long it went on. Even in my shuffly-feet theater, we all burst out laughing. I like how the film didn't shy away from the atrocities at all, and I found Jamie Foxx to be just fine in place of Will Smith (the original actor meant to be Django, he decided against it.)
It didn't shy away from the ways of the times by way of acting, either; I couldn't believe how well DiCaprio portrayed a smarmy slaver. Basically I've gotta give everyone in the main cast credit for an amazing performance, although Schultz was easily my favorite.
Also:
! There are some people out there who are saying the film itself uses Stephen as an evil black character as a means to absolve white people of some of the blame of slavery. I think he was simply a victim, working within the confines of slavery to get himself the best position. Notice how much he freaks out when Django arrives on a horse a free man and how nice Candie treats Django? He didn't even know that was possible. He perpetuated slavery but was still a victim. This was fairly obvious, wasn't it? Yet there are still people freaking out about it.
-
Just saw it yesterday: One thing I absolutely love about Tarantino's villains is how he makes them remarkably compelling.
Like Waltz's character in Inglorious Basterds, Leo's character is delightfully charming, but also has several despicable moments that really disgusts the audience. However, one still cannot help but enjoy seeing him on screen (it's a odd polarizing relationship he has with the audience). He is so utterly entertaining and occasionally sympathetic, but Tarantino definitely knows how to remind the audience that he's THE VILLAIN.Tarantino really has a strong knack for picking the "right" actor for each role. It is quite a marvel since a lot of the actors pulled off their parts perfectly (Foxx, Waltz, Jackson, and Leo). I really wanted to know how Leo ended up with this role. It suited him extremely well, but it does not seem like a role he would typically play. Now I want to see him as a sophisticated villain in another movie and see how well he can pull it off.
Even though Waltz has only been in two Tarantino films, I think Tarantino really knows how to write for him (just like how he uses Jackson in his movies). Hopefully Tarantino will continue to employ him in future projects. It was so much fun seeing him with Jackson and Leo. All of their lines were gold in the film. I cannot think of one line on the top of my head where I thought it was awkwardly delivered or out of place.
-
Dat Rick Ross song.
-
The first 2 hours were the usual Tarantino awesomeness (i really loved the mentor-mentee relationship between Schultz and Django), the last 45 minutes were kind of weird and disappointing but all in all, an exceptional movie as expected of Quentin.
-
Sorry for the latish post but the movie finally came out in my country.
My thoughts:Tarantino's tribute to spaghetti westerns and my new personal favorite Tarantino flick. Quality-wise it's not Tarantino's best but there's just something about the story of a black man and a non-racist Christoph Waltz riding around and killing slavers. The characters of Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson immediately catapult the movie to one of my favorite flicks of the year. It was Tarantino's trademark bizarre mixture of quirky, gut-busting comedy, gorey, self-indulgent violence and surprisingly serious drama taken to new heights by his powerhouse of a cast. Honestly, I don't know what to say about this movie, there's so much good to it and it's all so multi-layered. The music, the camera angles and movement, the certain scenes that are shockingly both beautiful and strange as is typical of Tarantino ( my favorite being a scene of white poppies being stained with the blood of a slaver that was shot). They're all so bizarre and shocking on their own but when put together they somehow work and complement each other to give a really impressive and outstanding movie and Tarantino has always been really good at it. That you can go from gut-busting comedy to serious, dark drama without any mood whiplash takes such sophisticated writing which Tarantino is just a master of (personal favorite comedy scene: the KKK wannabees complaining about the eyeholes in their masks…and the guy who got shot in the dick).
Now that I'm done fellating Tarantino, I'll get to the negatives. Tarantino is a brilliant film-maker, one of the few directors who constantly challenges the Hollywood system and just wants to make movies that fit his artistic vision without the usual studio interference, for that he has a lot of my respect. But he can be a bit self-indulgent at times and I think this movie suffered a lot because of it. Now I'm not talking about his cameos in the movies, those are always hilarious. What I mean is that in the case of this movie, Tarantino really should have known when to stop or at least drawn a line between indulgent gore and the integrity of the story.
So Django is captured and sent to live the rest of his life working in a mine but he manages to escape and gets revenge on the slavers for killing his partner and kidnapping his girlfriend. It's basically the third act of the third act of the movie. And it's just played like a cartoon. The rest of the movie was very serious when it got to the dramatic stuff. Yes there were many quirky comical moments but Tarantino was very good in working in the tone shifts without it seeming out of place mostly because when it got to the darker, more dramatic scenes, they had an appropriate amount of seriousness. When Django and Shultz killed their bounty heads, there was still some of that quirkiness but it felt more serious, when the really dark shit went down like a slave being torn apart by dogs, there was no humour. But then you get to the last act with Django getting revenge and it's so...comical. It is like something straight out of a cartoon with Django killing scores of slavers in typical quirky, wild west fashion and cracking jokes and blowing up mansions and watching them explode and giving a big tada like he was performing a show and then getting on a horse...which does ballet. Now here's the thing, I liked it, it was fun and entertaining which was clearly what Tarantino was going for. He basically went fuck it, let's have fun and played it like a straight spaghetti western that he grew up with. Okay. But it wasn't really consistent with the rest of the movie tonally wise. And Tarantino is usually fantastic with his switching tones without it seeming out of place and yet in that instance, the final final act of the movie really felt like it belonged in a different movie. Which is where I get to my point of Tarantino being a bit too self-indulgent. It's fine to just want to make a cheesy, gorey shoot em up fest but you need to keep the story that you set up and built up to. It takes you out of the movie in a sense. Honestly, I would have ended it with Django being captured and that's it. Bummer ending but it would have been a far better movie. The extra 45 minutes just didn't really fit with the rest of the movie. Again, I liked them, they were fun but when put in the context of the rest of the movie? They were pretty weird. I suppose one could make the argument that it was intentional because Tarantino was making a point about how the last act was a fantasy of the black man miraculously being able to overthrow the white slavers and it was so over the top because it would never be able to happen in real life but eh...it felt more like he just wanted to have fun to me.
With that said, I loved the movie. Really really loved. Every second I was enraptured by it. It was the epitome of a fun western with plenty of blood and shooting and some surprisingly deep and dark drama underneath. Totally in my top ten movies of 2012, probably in my top five to boot. A MUST watch.
Also if we're ranking Tarantino films mine would be
1. Django Unchained
2. Inglorious Basterds
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Kill Bill 1
5. Kill Bill 2
6. Reservoir Dogs
7. From Dusk Till Dawn (it counts)
8. Four Rooms
9. Jackie Brown
10. Death Proof
-
If From Dusk Till Dawn counts, then you need to throw True Romance on the list too.
-
Never heard of that movie before but it looks really good from what RT tells me. Will definitely check it out.
-
If True Romance and From Dusk Till Dawn counts then you should add Natural Born Killers and the CSI douple episode, too.
-
Okay geez fine, I won't count from Dusk till Dawn.
-
Saw it last night. Was good and all, and Waltz was beyond awesome but not a film i'll ever see again
Might just be me getting sick of Tarantino