Django, silent D, Unchained

[BD80]

i enjoyed the movie, but can't imagine this being the best or even one of the best movies of the year.

I enjoy Tarantino, but think he is one of those who is more a symbol of popular culture than true genius. It was a bold move to tackle the issue of slavery and the treatment of slaves, and clever to approach it from a spagetti western / Blazing Saddles approach. Problem was that Tarantino was not brave enough to take the movie seriously, so the audience couldn't either. The gratuitous violence diluted the outrage the audience should have felt at key moments.

I recommend seing the movie, but temper your expectations. In my mind either the direction or the acting was very heavy-handed. The sound track was often annoying, but occassionally inspired (but Croce's "I've Got a Name?" - come on). In all, it is well worth discussing and certainly worth seeing.

[Oriole Way]

I felt this was a brilliant film. I think it's his second best film after Pulp Fiction.

For me, it's:

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Django Unchained
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. Kill Bill 1
6. Kill Bill 2
7. Jackie Brown
8. Death Proof

The performances by Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, and Leonardo DiCaprio were outstanding. Django is Tarantino's best-acted film, in my opinion. It is perhaps Tarantino's funniest film, while also depicting slavery as something close to the brutal, evil, and oppressive injustice that it was. Can't wait to see it again, because I think it will stand the test of time and be the kind of movie that improves upon repeated viewings.

[Jim3k]

I don't wanna get into a discussion about which Tarantino film is the best, second best, or worst. I had trouble accepting the historical deviations he offered in Basterds and disliked the film as a result. But it introduced me to Christophe Waltz who absolutely lit up his scenes. He is marvelous in that regard. And, in Django, he does it again. As before, Tarantino messes with historical accuracy, though here I was less dismayed.

In Django, you have a rescued slave, Foxx, who becomes an implacable avenger. He shoots as least as well as Eastwood and is even faster and more accurate if that is possible. (Considering that revolvers with self-contained metal cartridges weren't really available at the movie's time period, such shooting is a Tarantino anomaly.) But it is Waltz who carries the premise of the film and he's delightful as an avuncular bounty hunter. The image of his dental wagon with the molar swinging on top makes me laugh just thinking about it.

And you can see the actors are really into it. This film has a list of high quality character actors as long as your arm. Some are hard to recognize--costumes, beards, aging process. (Who knew Don Johnson and Don Stroud would ever get older?) All are on their game. Most are hardly more than cameos. Stroud as a sheriff of uncertain background is credibly menacing, yet his death scene comes so fast, it is a stunner. And Michael Parks (once known for the lead in Then Came Bronson) lasts no longer than Stroud. Gainey, Huckabee and Duhame are well known from other roles and do well as the Brittle Brothers here. And I should mention Walton Goggins, again. He's become my favorite redneck bully, fresh from Justified and Lincoln (where he played out of character as a wimp pol). As usual, he's a scary SOB. There are plenty of other character actors I'm omitting who do just as well.

And, the main heavies (well, everyone is a heavy here), DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Johnson, are effective; even Bruce Dern gets into the act for a moment. Oh...except for Jonah Hill, who fails as a heavy-type, but succeeds as an inept hooded night rider. The whole night rider scene is meant as comic relief and Hill is as comic as can be. [But this scene is either an historic anomaly or Tarantino mocking the concept of the Ku Kux Klan, presenting it as composed of complete doofuses; funny, but a bit off center and a chronological anomaly.] After all, the eyes were in the wrong places. Anyone got an extra bag?

The eye candy is plenty good with Kerry Washington as the damsel in distress. Even Laura Cayouette will appeal to the older set--like me. She's one of Tarantino's regulars--from Kill Bill 2. In fact, many of Tarantino's stable of actors from other films reappear here. Waltz, of course, and Jackson are the primary members. Parks is another.

Jackson probably deserves special mention. When he appears late in the film, the spotlight doesn't know where to shine because the scenes are lit up by an army of scene dominators: Waltz, DiCaprio, Jackson and Foxx--with lesser lights like Goggins demanding your attention. With that group, Washington is reduced, as I said, to damsel in distress, a role where her talents (well, skills) are not called upon.

Well worth seeing. Waltz and Jackson's performances are worthy of award consideration. As others have said, this film has violence and blood, but it is almost cartoonlike. And I'm not generally a fan of shoot 'em ups--with Eastwood exceptions--but this is not as repellant as the Willis movies. Somehow that aspect of the violence becomes subordinate to the underlying story.

[alteran]

Hmmm -- while I have seen a decent number of ads for it, I don't think it has been an unusual amount for a major studio film coming out at a prime time of the movie season. I don't think it has been that much more than Jack Reacher or This is 40 for example. It has almost certainly been less than what I saw for Skyfall, Wreck-it-Ralph, or Rise of the Guardians.

Tarantino movies don't tend to be the kind of films a studio forces down your throat. That is just not good marketing because his movies are not for everyone due to the extreme violence and language in them. What's more, the film is being distributed and marketed by The Weinstein Company and they do not put nearly as much money into tradition advertising/marketing as do the Big 6 studios Warner, Disney, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Fox (Lionsgate is about to join that top tier, by the way).

Anyway, I would be quite surprised to hear that Django has an appreciably larger advertising budget than most of the big titles being released this season.

-Jason "still dying to see it" Evans

Agreed. My brother and I saw this movie this weekend and discussed how we thought the studio had hardly pushed the movie (relatively speaking) at all.

Maybe we're watching different media from the OP?

[alteran]

I saw this movie yesterday. I enjoyed it a lot. I went with my brother and he enjoyed it as well, but not as much as I. The biggest difference: expectations. I'd heard bad things going in and was pleasantly surprised, he heard high praise and was mildly disappointed.

Our criticisms were pretty similar-- the movie dragged at points. Maybe too many points. I think they could have easily shaved 45 minutes. I agree with Jason (actually, I agree with almost everything from Jason's assessment) that Tarantino really could do with an editor that says, "Quentin, the shooting scene doesn't need to last 12 minutes. 45 seconds will do. Also, once we've established the slave owner is a rat basterd (sic), let's move on."

Speaking of which, Inglourious Basterds (I'm not sure I have the misspellings right) is the movie that this parallels the most from the Tarantino canon. I imagine that most people that liked one of those will feel very similar about the other. Both are revenge flicks first and foremost, which take extreme liberty with historical accuracy but allow the downtrodden parties to exact the revenge history denied them.

I'm a little surprised that there are complaints about historical inaccuracy in IB and DjU. Granted, Hitler was clearly not assassinated in a french movie house. But historical INaccuracy is, more or less, the whole point. When they took out Hitler in IB, I laughed so hard I missed the next 5 minutes of the movie. It simply had not occurred to me that QT would just do something so ridiculously anti-historical.

And fun. Seriously-- who doesn't want to see Hitler get offed? By Jews! Similarly, who doesn't want to see repugnant slave owners get taken on by a badass black guy wearing what look like $400 shades from The Matrix?

To me, both these movies are like a hamburger and fries. Sure, there are better meals that are far more healthy that require more culinary artistry. Sometimes, those high end meals are what I want.

But this movie was a damn good burger and fries-- pretty much all I was looking for on New Years' Day.

[Jderf]

Saw it and loved it. My only regret is that, despite the many dozens of amazing lines, the movie is damn-near unquotable for a nice Jewish boy like me. Oh well

--SPOILERS BELOW--

Did anyone else get the feeling that when Schultz shoots Candie and turns around saying, "I couldn't resist," it was almost as if Quentin Tarantino was speaking directly to the audience through his character? It seemed to me that he knew he had very nearly wrapped up the movie in a highly complex and interesting way, where people could spend hours discussing the "winners" and "losers" and various other intricacies of the ending, but in the end some instinctual drive just forced him to close it in such a way that nearly everyone gets shot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm starting to get the feeling a lot of his movies end that way.

[Tommac]

Saw it and loved it. My only regret is that, despite the many dozens of amazing lines, the movie is damn-near unquotable for a nice Jewish boy like me. Oh well

--SPOILERS BELOW--

Did anyone else get the feeling that when Schultz shoots Candie and turns around saying, "I couldn't resist," it was almost as if Quentin Tarantino was speaking directly to the audience through his character? It seemed to me that he knew he had very nearly wrapped up the movie in a highly complex and interesting way, where people could spend hours discussing the "winners" and "losers" and various other intricacies of the ending, but in the end some instinctual drive just forced him to close it in such a way that nearly everyone gets shot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm starting to get the feeling a lot of his movies end that way.

I thought similarly that the movie could just have easily ended with Schultz shaking Candie's hand and then making a graceful exit with Django and the wife, but then I thought, that's not a Tarantino ending. There just had to be more blood and violence. Too many main characters were still alive.

[davekay1971]

But this movie was a damn good burger and fries-- pretty much all I was looking for on New Years' Day.

But did it come with a 5 dollar milkshake?

[alteran]

But did it come with a 5 dollar milkshake?

Congratulations. You win the internet.

[OldPhiKap]

But did it come with a 5 dollar milkshake?

Buddy Holly is not a very good waiter, I understand.

[Udaman]

Saw it....And I guess the biggest word I would use is disappointed.

Let me start by saying I would recommend it. I still enjoyed it. These days any Quentin movie is better than most of the stuff that comes out. As others have said, Waltz was incredible. He's so good it's scary. It's too bad he won for Bastards because it will likely mean he won't win for this...but he should. Leonardo was great. Foxx was great. The supporting actors were excellent. I thought the men with sheets on their head was an absolute homage to Blazing Saddles, and it worked. The dialogue (as would be expected) was generally excellent. This is not a bad movie.

But it's not a great one either. For me, there were several issues:

1) Didn't like the ending. As someone else said, I agree that when Waltz shot Candie, it was definitely Quentin talking there. He couldn't help it. He had to have the slavery revenge story come through. It's too bad because I thought it could have ended there.

2) Didn't like that it danced around realism. On one hand it shows a man torn apart by dogs...but they glossed over true horror. No rape scenes. Not even (really) a hint at rape. It got the whipping stuff down (in a brutal way), but I think it missed the mark with the other brutalities that went on. And it was very anachronistic. No way would a black man get away riding a horse in Mississippi back then. No way at all. He would be shot on the spot, likely.

3) I actually, found it a bit racist, to be honest - especially in the portrayal of Samuel Jackson's character. He was shown to be a slave who sided with his white owner. He betrayed Foxx's character and almost caused them to be killed. He wanted Foxx to face a horrible future and not a quick death. So yeah, they portrayed Jackson as a "bad guy." But to me this was kind of a cop-out. Slavery was awful. People did awful things to survive. To make Jackson's character a bad guy is really unfair (or at least it was to me). Especially given the earlier scene when Foxx has the chance to save the man who is killed by dogs, but decides not to do so. He did this so he would stay in the white slave owner's good grace. But it was still a horrible decision he had to make. I got that. I found it painfully realistic. But to then turn and show another slave doing something similar (doing what he could to protect himself and other slaves, sometimes at the cost of others), he declared that person was evil. For some reason that really bothered me (and I KNOW it would bother my spouse who is a historian).

Overall it's a good movie, and I would see it in the theater...but I would put every other Quentin movie ahead of this one except Death Proof (which shouldn't really count). Again, that's not saying much. He's a great director and writer, and even with its flaws this was a quality movie.

Incidentally my list of his would be:

1. Pulp Fiction. 2. (True Romance if it's counted, but if not) Reservoir Dogs 3. Kill Bill 1 4. Inglorious Basterds 5. Kill Bill 2 6. Jackie Brown 7. Django Unchained

[El_Diablo]

3) I actually, found it a bit racist, to be honest - especially in the portrayal of Samuel Jackson's character. He was shown to be a slave who sided with his white owner. He betrayed Foxx's character and almost caused them to be killed. He wanted Foxx to face a horrible future and not a quick death. So yeah, they portrayed Jackson as a "bad guy." But to me this was kind of a cop-out. Slavery was awful. People did awful things to survive. To make Jackson's character a bad guy is really unfair (or at least it was to me). Especially given the earlier scene when Foxx has the chance to save the man who is killed by dogs, but decides not to do so. He did this so he would stay in the white slave owner's good grace. But it was still a horrible decision he had to make. I got that. I found it painfully realistic. But to then turn and show another slave doing something similar (doing what he could to protect himself and other slaves, sometimes at the cost of others), he declared that person was evil. For some reason that really bothered me (and I KNOW it would bother my spouse who is a historian).

Your spouse would probably not be as surprised by Jackson's character as you may think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ

[Udaman]

That youtube clip kind of proved my point in a way....and I think it's exactly what Quentin had in mind....

But Malcolm X's point here wasn't to trash the slaves. He was saying that back then, this is what certain people did. They did it to survive. It was awful. They were brainwashed victims. They were in a world where they got power and protection. It was awful...but something some people did to gain power. Malcolm's point was that some people are still doing it today, when they don't need to. I didn't really agree with his comment - but it was definitely aimed at people in current time.

Sadly, I think Quentin misrepresented this thing the same way. Looking at the house slave as being the same as the white slave owners. This is just my interpretation, and it definitely left me with very mixed feelings.

And I can guarantee that my spouse will not like the movie at all - just because of that (and she loved! Kill Bill, Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction).

[Udaman]

By the way...one other thing....this movie kind of lacked (at least for me) one of those signature scenes from a typical Quentin flick. It almost got there with the dinner scene and Candie's house...almost. But there was nothing like the opening scene in Basterds, or the scene in the German pub in Basterds, or fight scene in Kill Bill 2 with Hannah and Thurman, or numerous scenes in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. It tried...but there was nothing for me where I was holding my breath from the tension.

[davekay1971]

By the way...one other thing....this movie kind of lacked (at least for me) one of those signature scenes from a typical Quentin flick. It almost got there with the dinner scene and Candie's house...almost. But there was nothing like the opening scene in Basterds, or the scene in the German pub in Basterds, or fight scene in Kill Bill 2 with Hannah and Thurman, or numerous scenes in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. It tried...but there was nothing for me where I was holding my breath from the tension.

That's too bad. I haven't gotten out to see this movie yet, but still plan to. Yet, the thing I like best about Tarantino movies is THAT SCENE, the one or two he almost always has in a movie where, from situation and great dialogue, he builds up incredible tension. The two scenes mentioned in Basterds were just awesome. My favorite parts of the movie, and they elevated the movie for me. I hope I get something out of Django that you didn't, but if the movie is missing that classic QT scene, that will be the biggest disappointment for me.

[BD80]

Amusing look into Tarantino's formative years:

http://larrybrownsports.com/basketba...berlain/168631

Having Wilt Chamberlin "date" my mom would have an impact on me

His life in the 70s should be fodder for a sitcom on HBO

[NashvilleDevil]

By the way...one other thing....this movie kind of lacked (at least for me) one of those signature scenes from a typical Quentin flick. It almost got there with the dinner scene and Candie's house...almost. But there was nothing like the opening scene in Basterds, or the scene in the German pub in Basterds, or fight scene in Kill Bill 2 with Hannah and Thurman, or numerous scenes in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. It tried...but there was nothing for me where I was holding my breath from the tension.

I am with you. I think part of the reason is Jamie Foxx. If Denzel, Will Smith or Idris Elba played Django then you get your epic Tarantino scene. Jamie Foxx is a decent actor but for me he may be one of Quentin's few misfires in casting.