View Full Version : I just watched "Django Unchained"...Wow!
AncientChord
12-26-2012, 01:28 AM
I loved every single moment of it. Great acting, dark humor, awesome "Spaghetti Western" soundtrack, including a lovely new track by Ennio Morricone. And as usual, Tarantino's over the top violence. A really great homage to the Italian Western, and some graphic exposure to the dark (no pun) side of slavery in America. A very cool western-action adventure flick, sure to please. Anyone else seen it yet?
scags
12-26-2012, 07:21 AM
Should go with my son, next week. I'm looking forward to it. Also, there is a great in depth interview with Quenton on the NY times website.
-=RTFR666=-
12-26-2012, 10:20 AM
My oldest daughter and I saw it yesterday while the young 'uns spent the day with the crazy ex's family. Classic Tarantino homage to the 60s spaghetti westerns (loved the opening music) filtered thru 70s grindhouse, although the plantation shootout was just a little too much of a ripoff of the nightclub battle in Kill Bill Vol 1 for my tastes. I was on the edge of my seat waiting for the moment that the vile plantation widow would buy it, and was not disappointed when the moment came. Been watching the Justified series to prep for season 4, so was gratified seeing the Crowders on screen... :up :up Christoph Waltz was just as awesome here as he was in Unglorious Basterds.
sonic
12-26-2012, 11:12 AM
A different perspective here:
Tarantino’s incoherent three-hour bloodbath (http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/tarantinos_incoherent_three_hour_bloodbath/)
"Django Unchained" has action, comedy, fake history and oceans of blood -- but it's an endless, undisciplined mess
Quentin Tarantino no longer makes movies; he makes trailers. “Django Unchained” feels like a three-hour trailer for a movie that never happens, a slavery-revenge melodrama cum salt-‘n’-pepper action film that would be awesome if it actually existed.
AncientChord
12-26-2012, 01:52 PM
Tarantino’s incoherent three-hour bloodbath
"Django Unchained" has action, comedy, fake history and oceans of blood -- but it's an endless, undisciplined mess
Quentin Tarantino no longer makes movies; he makes trailers. “Django Unchained” feels like a three-hour trailer for a movie that never happens, a slavery-revenge melodrama cum salt-‘n’-pepper action film that would be awesome if it actually existed.
Whoever did this review takes Tarantino's movies way of of context, and too seriously. This is simply nothing more than an homage in style to the Spaghetti Western movie genre, which was always fiction, always non-believable in real life, and way over the top in both the comedy and the violence. Visually the Italian Westerns, especially with the Sergio Leone westerns, always had a look of realism in their sets, and the way people actually looked, grubby, unshaven, and without bathing for sometimes a week or more. Even the guns used, are the real ones from the period. Leone did his research, and Tarantino followed. And I thought this to be a very touching love story, in which a black slave becomes the rescuer of his damsel in distress. This is a typical violent revenge film, typical for the genre and typical for Tarantino. Is is exciting? Yes. Is it comical? Hell yes! Is it a really fun to watch, even though some difficult scenes involving slave abuse are hard to watch? Yes. And is the acting great? Yes. Everyone's crowing (and rightly so) about Leonardo Di Caprio's and Chistoph Waltz's performances, but IMO Samuel L. Jackson gives us his greatest performance EVER. He should get an Oscar nomination. Is this overall a great film? Absolutely!! :up
rapidfirerob
12-26-2012, 03:33 PM
It will be in the Netflix queue, for sure. Funny how Spike Lee is dissing it without seeing it.
AncientChord
12-26-2012, 04:19 PM
It will be in the Netflix queue, for sure. Funny how Spike Lee is dissing it without seeing it.
Who gives a shit what Spike Lee thinks? He is nothing more than an always grim faced, insecure about who he is racist. He doesn't get Tarantino's movies at all, and his sour grapes attitude exposes more of how ignorant he really is. He needs to lighten up, and have FUN. But I'm not sure he's capable of that. He's jealous, and wishes he could make movies as enjoyable as Tarantino's.:roll
3LockBox
12-26-2012, 06:22 PM
->Tarantino’s incoherent three-hour bloodbath
"Django Unchained" has action, comedy, fake history and oceans of blood -- but it's an endless, undisciplined mess
Quentin Tarantino no longer makes movies; he makes trailers. “Django Unchained” feels like a three-hour trailer for a movie that never happens, a slavery-revenge melodrama cum salt-‘n’-pepper action film that would be awesome if it actually existed.<-
Whoever did this review takes Tarantino's movies way of of context, and too seriously. This is simply nothing more than an homage in style to the Spaghetti Western movie genre, which was always fiction, always non-believable in real life, and way over the top in both the comedy and the violence. Sometimes criticism of popular stars and movie makers is backlash for all the gushing praise some of them get. Tarantino especially. He could make a mime movie and his fans would jack-off to it.
I happen to agree with the critique, though I'm not sure the paragraph doesn't describe quite a few modern movie makers. I don't find Tarantino any more original or egregious than any other modern filmakers. He can be entertaining in short doses. Sometimes 'homage' is just another word for "seen it before". He seems to borrow equally from Cohen Brothers and/or Verhoeven.
moecurlythanu
12-26-2012, 08:10 PM
I'm just glad they made a movie about a Jazz musician kickin' some ass. I'm waiting for the follow-up, 'Stephane Ain't Puttin' Up With No Shit!'
progeezer
12-26-2012, 09:49 PM
Try to GRAPPLE with the fact that the movie wasn't about either the RHINE or the HEART, moe:p.
moecurlythanu
12-26-2012, 10:00 PM
:D
progeezer
12-26-2012, 10:07 PM
Kay & I saw it today, and we both loved it. There's some suspension of reality required for Foxx's character, but it doesn't matter a bit imo. Waltz, Di Caprio & Jackson are all terrific, and Tarantino fans won't feel cheated on the sanguine front.
Progmatic
12-26-2012, 10:18 PM
I am one of those who do not like T's movies. It is very simple; made up fantasy shallow stories, violence and gory with no particular reason behind it, over the top acting. Everything is grimm and violent, he cannot handle characters so he replaces it with actions. Will I watch it? Most likely. Will I pay for it? Based on his previous movies; no way!
scags
12-27-2012, 07:09 AM
Q T 's movies are worth 12 bucks just for the dialogue. The other stuff is a bonus.
-=RTFR666=-
12-27-2012, 02:27 PM
I'll offer up a review from a journalist that, for the most part*, 'gets it' :
http://www.examiner.com/review/django-unchained-tackles-the-absurdity-of-slavery
Quentin is a fanboy of the movie genres and his mash-ups (homages, ripoffs, wtf-ever you want to call 'em) are his claim to fame. He makes no pretense about it. This niche he has created for himself draws off of the inspiration those movies provide and and he has a knack for the genre dialogue. That he's had the good fortune to attract top-name actors who share his love for the genres he's been mining from just about Day One, beginning with his screenplay for True Romance, makes each new release a must-see for me. For those who whine about the violence, profanity, wtf-ever - - well, DUH, his movies are not supposed to be subtle nor are they intended for the politcally-correct, faint of heart movie audience. He churns out live-action Itchy & Scratchy Show/Wile E. Coyote-style guilty-pleasure escapist entertainment. I always can depend on QT films to have flashes of cinematic bravado (e.g, The Bride and O-Ren Ishii's climactic sword fight in Kill Bill Vol 1? That sequence is awesome - and you can't deny the 'blood across the snow' imagery was recycled to good effect for the 'blood across the cotton' moment in Django) that elevate him far above hack status. But when all is said and written, I've never observed QTs persona to be nothing more than that of the guy who hit the Hollywood lotto, and is now in his 3rd decade of getting to make the types of movies he's always loved. Crime noir, blacksploitation, martial arts, horror, spaghetti western - whatever the genre, I always look forward to seeing how it receives the Tarantino treatment. There's no denying his speed-freak enthusiasm for what he does. (Personality-wise, the guy's annoying as all get-out. He's how I'd imagine Jymbot to be IRL.) That he insists on featuring himself in cameos as often as he does is my one pet peeve about his films.
And while I'm as big a fan of their movies as I am of QTs, the Coen Bros, in interviews as well as their filmography have always, to me, consciously presented themselves as high-falutin' high-art black comedy auteurs ever since Blood Simple. So for those who claim QT is a Coen Bros Wannabe...pass me that tube of glue after you're done huffin' mmkay? ;)
* The writer and I part ways with her OTT bias re: QTs 'genius'
AncientChord
12-27-2012, 03:09 PM
Thanks Rob for the Examiner review, and your comments. The reviewer and you both "get" Tarantino. And that's why I love him. He's a fan boy, like so many of us. I work at Burbank Airport in California, and just after Inglorius Basterds, Tarantino walked through the baggage claim area where I work. I excused myself from my co-workers, and followed him to the curb where he was awaiting his limo. I approched him saying that we both had something in common. When I told him that I loved the music of Ennio Morricone, his face and eyes lit up just like a 12 year old boy. And he was very, very nice and cool. We talked for a few minutes, and he was smiling from ear to ear. I told him also of my love of Spaghetti Westerns, and heard the rumor that he was considering making one. All of a sudden his limo arrived, and as he stepped into it, he looked back at me, smiled, winked and said "You never know what you might get when you wish?" I'll never forget that, and here we are now. And I'm very pleased by the outcome. I've also thought about several other things since seeing the movie on Xmas. The relationship between Django and Dr. Shultz is definitely based upon the similar friend/brotherhood theme in Sergio Leone's "For A Few Dollars More" between Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name, and bounty hunter Col. Douglas Mortimer played by the late Lee Van Cleef. But that's one of so many nods for the Italian Western that Tarantino used for this film. And more thoughts about hate monger Spike Lee. As good as Jamie Foxx is, and he's good, Spike Lee may have made a better Django, because Lee could have easily played himself. But Lee probably would have had a hard time being tender and loving to Broomhilda, since he's a advocate of the hip-hop, treat women like crap culture. At any rate, Lee playing Django probably would have been the only chance that he would ever have at earning an Oscar! ;)
-=RTFR666=-
12-27-2012, 03:20 PM
That must have been a very cool experience for you, meeting QT as you did. And not to drag out the subject 'cuz the guy ain't worth discussing, but I disagree with you on Spike Lee as Django Freeman. No, Spike would have been perfect as a stand-in for Stephen the house-slave.
And it wouldn't have required him to "act". :D
ETA:
1. What is driving me nuts right now is that all the reviewers are writing Django's wife name as "Broomhilda" when the legal papers the Doctor signed clearly spelled her name correctly, Brunhilde Von Shaft...
2. Growing up in the 60s, my stepdad was a fan of Clint Eastwood and he always took us kids to the drive-in for the first run of the Sergio Leone Man with No Name features. And if you remember the first appearance of Dr. Shultz' tooth wagon in town, I'd swear they were playing the theme from Two Mules for Sister Sarah as the wagon rounded the corner, tooth a-bouncin' :up
AncientChord
12-27-2012, 03:41 PM
Rob, I own EVERY Ennio Morricone western score, and yes, two tracks from "Sister Sara" are on the DU soundtrack. I also own many other Spaghetti Western scores, including the Main Theme of Django by Luis Bacalov, and also used in the current film, along with many other tracks from various Italian Westerns.
And yes, there has been some thoughts with Broomhilda. I forgot, but one reviewer asked Tarantino about this, and he replied that Broomhilda was correct, since that is how the blacks at the time interpreted the name.
And your comments on Spike "the dog"...:lol
moecurlythanu
12-27-2012, 03:50 PM
What is driving me nuts right now is that all the reviewers are writing Django's wife name as "Broomhilda" when the legal papers the Doctor signed clearly spelled her name correctly, Brunhilde Von Shaft...
If the movie character bears any resemblance to this: 854 Then the confusion is understandable.
-=RTFR666=-
12-27-2012, 03:58 PM
If the movie character bears any resemblance to this: 854 Then the confusion is understandable.
:lol
Scags, by any chance can throw us the link to the NYT article you refer to in Post #2? Coming up emptyhanded so far... TIA
3LockBox
12-27-2012, 05:38 PM
So for those who claim QT is a Coen Bros Wannabe...pass me that tube of glue after you're done huffin' mmkay? ;)
Where did anyone say that?
-=RTFR666=-
12-27-2012, 06:37 PM
He seems to borrow equally from Cohen Brothers and/or Verhoeven.
:meh - and we may as well suggest QTs work is on par with Verhoeven's Showgirls, eh? :roll
scags
12-27-2012, 08:07 PM
You can look in the "movies" section of www.nytimes.com for the article. According to an interview with Samuel L the other day, Brunhilde Shaft is John's ancestor.
-=RTFR666=-
12-27-2012, 09:18 PM
Well, here's a couple, anyways, not apparently the one referred to previously but interesting nonetheless...
http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/movies/quentin-tarantinos-django-unchained-stars-jamie-foxx.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/movies/how-quentin-tarantino-concocted-a-genre-of-his-own.html?ref=movies
Baribrotzer
12-30-2012, 08:07 AM
Saw it a couple of days ago. Very interesting indeed. Among the parts that struck me:
- That the "peculiar institution" brutalized everybody in that society, not just the bad guys: Doc Schultz, a cultured, educated European who speaks better English than any of the Americans, falls into a line of work as the coldest of cold-blooded murderers. Meanwhile, Django, to establish his character with Calvin Candie, goes along with the most horrifying killing in the whole film (Yes, he probably knew that D'Artangan was a dead man already, but still...).
- That a Southern white man did not have a "job". He did not work for someone else. The plantation overseers, in spite of drawing their pay from the inhabitant of the Big House, probably saw themselves not as actually working, but as riding herd upon those who did - and would have been outraged if the planter were described as their boss. The lawyer saw himself as a retainer, not an employee, wherein his family were vassals to the Candie family in that legal capacity. And in the case of Calvin Candie himself, he worked so little that he didn't even need to do his own thinking - he had Stephen to do that for him.
- And that the mostly bad shooting by the bad guys was completely unrealistic. Almost all white Southerners were deadly shots, because if they couldn't shoot, they didn't survive: The poor ones hunted for the pot, and if they didn't shoot straight, they didn't eat. The rich ones constantly fought duels over trifling matters, and didn't live to manhood if they didn't win. That is the reason there were no successful slave revolts, not the phrenology of the "Negro skull". Incidentally, that is also the reason the Confederates thought the Civil War would be a cakewalk.
progeezer
12-30-2012, 02:46 PM
^^^^^^^^^^ :up As usual, John! Some superb analysis.
AncientChord
12-30-2012, 03:09 PM
Saw it a couple of days ago. Very interesting indeed. Among the parts that struck me:
- That the "peculiar institution" brutalized everybody in that society, not just the bad guys: Doc Schultz, a cultured, educated European who speaks better English than any of the Americans, falls into a line of work as the coldest of cold-blooded murderers. Meanwhile, Django, to establish his character with Calvin Candie, goes along with the most horrifying killing in the whole film (Yes, he probably knew that D'Artangan was a dead man already, but still...).
- That a Southern white man did not have a "job". He did not work for someone else. The plantation overseers, in spite of drawing their pay from the inhabitant of the Big House, probably saw themselves not as actually working, but as riding herd upon those who did - and would have been outraged if the planter were described as their boss. The lawyer saw himself as a retainer, not an employee, wherein his family were vassals to the Candie family in that legal capacity. And in the case of Calvin Candie himself, he worked so little that he didn't even need to do his own thinking - he had Stephen to do that for him.
- And that the mostly bad shooting by the bad guys was completely unrealistic. Almost all white Southerners were deadly shots, because if they couldn't shoot, they didn't survive: The poor ones hunted for the pot, and if they didn't shoot straight, they didn't eat. The rich ones constantly fought duels over trifling matters, and didn't live to manhood if they didn't win. That is the reason there were no successful slave revolts, not the phrenology of the "Negro skull". Incidentally, that is also the reason the Confederates thought the Civil War would be a cakewalk.
I so much enjoyed this film that friends that had not seen it yet asked me to go again with them, so I did last evening and got so much more out of it a second time. I'll wait for a third watch once the DVD comes out with the Director's cut, and the probable "cut" extra scenes.
I agree that Dr. Schultz coldly cuts down and kills bad people for money. Not to defend his way of "Dead, not Alive," I do believe that in the Old West, dead, not alive was the easiest way to collect a bounty. And the old code of the west was to always finish off who you shot, because if you didn't the the bad guy would come back for revenge and haunt you. SPOILER ALERT: In the scene where Django is hesitant to shoot an outlaw because that baddy is plowing a field with his young son, Django is reminded by Dr. Schultz that this man murdered many innocent people for money, and that as a bounty hunter, you must be able to make reasonable justifications for your acts. Cold, but true. He lets Django know that if you can't do this, then you are no fit to be a bounty hunter.
And IMO Django's love for Broomhilda greatly outweighs the horror that he must witnesses at the hands of Calvin Candie to let Candie see that he is real, even though it's an act. You do see Django at times almost blow it by the expressions on his face, verbal outbursts and at times almost going for his pistol. But Schultz keeps lecturing him not to blow their cover.
I totally agree with your analogy of Candie the plantation boss, and Stephen, again IMO Samuel L. Jackson's greatest role, and the best played Uncle Tom in screen history!
The white trash boys shooting badly? YEAH, you are probably right on this point. But remember, this this a fantasy, adventure western. Absolutely identical in character and style of the Sergio Leone Westerns, this film exposes many truths of the Old West, along with perpetuating the mythology of the era also. I think Tarantino just wanted those Southern "good ol' boys" to be viewed as completely backward assholes in every sense.
MORE SPOILER ALERTS: Again like the best of the Sergio Leone Westerns, this film has several different motives, and sub-plots, and is fairly deep on several levels. First, Django is depicted as one of the first shining black super-heroes that successfully rescues his fair maid. But again IMO, it is Dr. King Schultz that is the true hero in this film. A white man, who loathes slavery and the treatment of blacks. So in his heart of hearts, he really does have a conscious. And he does have guilt, and shows a responsibility in steering Django towards success, so much so that he gives his life for Django and Broomhilda.
At any rate, a second screening solidifies my feelings that this film is one of the best of 2012. It's really like the old days of the movies, where you can escape into a fantasy land for a few hours, with good acting and a minimum of special effects. And again, the acting is great! I hope the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences recognizes some of the outstanding performances in the film. Go see this film, it is simply awesome!
nosebone
12-30-2012, 05:07 PM
I'm going later..., I'll come back with a review!
Alway's loved QT.
Probably because my favorite films are from the late 60s and 70s.
nosebone
12-31-2012, 10:38 AM
I liked Django a lot but didn't love it.
I found it too long for such a simple story line.
You knew exactly where this thing was headed after five minutes yet it took almost three hours to get there!
But, a lot of great dialogue with some laugh out loud scenes and plenty of spilled blood.
Definitely QT's most cartoonish flick to date.
Iszil
12-31-2012, 02:27 PM
I can say I'm a Tarantino's fan. I love a lot of his films so I'll definitely go to see this one, after all the good criticism I've read,
Iszil
12-31-2012, 04:24 PM
I can say I'm a Tarantino's fan. I love a lot of his films so I'll definitely go to see this one, after all the good criticism I've read.
kristi
01-01-2013, 02:50 PM
Went to see this a few days ago and thought it was very well done. Yes, the story was simplistic - but the meat on the bones was not. This was difficult territory to delve into and I thought he did a good job, Was it all realistic? No - this is a movie, and it needs to be viewed as such - it is not a documentary. The setting was way off - there are no deserts, or even arid parts, in Mississippi, and those mountains are even far, far away from Texas. However, there was a great deal of truth in the way the slavery was depicted. having taught US history of this era, I have researched slavery looking for primary sources to support the way slavery really was. The collars of twisted metal on the slaves being brought to market (so that the slave, when lying down, can't rest their head on the ground or other surface), the hot box, the sheer brutality, was all correct according to what I've dug up.
I can't stop thinking about this movie. True Romance remains my favorite QT movie, but I think this is my new second.
Baribrotzer
01-01-2013, 07:28 PM
The setting was way off - there are no deserts, or even arid parts, in Mississippi, and those mountains are even far, far away from Texas. I noticed that myself. Some of the big jumbled rocks at the very beginning do look like a place in Arizona called Texas Canyon, so maybe they look like somewhere in Texas. But other than that: The huge, snow-capped mountains where Doc Schultz and Django stay the winter look like - and are - Wyoming. A great deal of the rest looks like - and is - California. Only the actual plantation scenes really look much like the South.
Why, I don't know. Tarantino is certainly smart enough and knowledgeable enough to tell Wyoming mountains from Texas mountains, and to know that Texas is in the South and Wyoming isn't. However, the old "spaghetti Westerns" were typically shot in Morocco, Algeria, or Spain, since those places were much closer to Rome than the American West and cheaper to work in as well. Maybe they had subtler versions of that kind of error - the wrong kind of trees, the wrong kind of railroads, Arab extras playing Indians, and the like - and QT was just saluting that as a part of that film-making tradition.
nosebone
01-01-2013, 10:06 PM
I noticed that myself. Some of the big jumbled rocks at the very beginning do look like a place in Arizona called Texas Canyon, so maybe they look like somewhere in Texas. But other than that: The huge, snow-capped mountains where Doc Schultz and Django stay the winter look like - and are - Wyoming. A great deal of the rest looks like - and is - California. Only the actual plantation scenes really look much like the South.
Why, I don't know. Tarantino is certainly smart enough and knowledgeable enough to tell Wyoming mountains from Texas mountains, and to know that Texas is in the South and Wyoming isn't. However, the old "spaghetti Westerns" were typically shot in Morocco, Algeria, or Spain, since those places were much closer to Rome than the American West and cheaper to work in as well. Maybe they had subtler versions of that kind of error - the wrong kind of trees, the wrong kind of railroads, Arab extras playing Indians, and the like - and QT was just saluting that as a part of that film-making tradition.
I wouldn't bother to nit pick any Tarantino flick.It'll make your head explode.
I am one of those who do not like T's movies. It is very simple; made up fantasy shallow stories, violence and gory with no particular reason behind it, over the top acting. Everything is grimm and violent, he cannot handle characters so he replaces it with actions. Will I watch it? Most likely. Will I pay for it? Based on his previous movies; no way!Django did have a reason. He was trying to rescue his wife after given his freedom by a bounty hunter.
Reginod
01-02-2013, 12:11 AM
I haven't seen it, but here's another take:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/12/28/black-audiences-white-stars-and-django-unchained/
AncientChord
01-02-2013, 12:42 AM
I noticed that myself. Some of the big jumbled rocks at the very beginning do look like a place in Arizona called Texas Canyon, so maybe they look like somewhere in Texas. But other than that: The huge, snow-capped mountains where Doc Schultz and Django stay the winter look like - and are - Wyoming. A great deal of the rest looks like - and is - California. Only the actual plantation scenes really look much like the South.
Why, I don't know. Tarantino is certainly smart enough and knowledgeable enough to tell Wyoming mountains from Texas mountains, and to know that Texas is in the South and Wyoming isn't. However, the old "spaghetti Westerns" were typically shot in Morocco, Algeria, or Spain, since those places were much closer to Rome than the American West and cheaper to work in as well. Maybe they had subtler versions of that kind of error - the wrong kind of trees, the wrong kind of railroads, Arab extras playing Indians, and the like - and QT was just saluting that as a part of that film-making tradition.
Almost all of the Italian Westerns were filmed in Italy, with the Desert scenes being shot in the Almerian Desert in southern Spain. There's one mountain pass that you see in "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly" that you also see in about 50 other Spaghetti's. The only exception to this was when Sergio Leone took his film crew and stars to Monument Valley Arizona/Utah for THE best IMO Spaghetti ever "Once Upon A Time In The West." In Almeria the old town sets for Leone's "Dollar's Trilogy" have been saved and expanded to become a tourist trap called "Leone Town." And yeah, I think Tarantino knows the geography of the United States. But once again, THIS IS JUST A COMIC BOOK WESTERN, with some graphic, yet realistic exposure of some of slavery's disgusting sins. The Texas town scenes were filmed at a Western movie set in Southern California, and the Desert scenes look like somewhere in the Mojave. The mountains, Wyoming. All of these locales are stated on the movie credits. But forget these minor quibbles, and get into what Kristi said, the meat and bones of this simple story, for the characters are complex.
NewworldmanLV
01-02-2013, 02:06 AM
I always enjoy movies where Leonardo gets hit in the face. Does he in this one? That alone would make it worth the price of admission.
progeezer
01-02-2013, 02:57 AM
I always enjoy movies where Leonardo gets hit in the face. Does he in this one? That alone would make it worth the price of admission.Won't spoil it, but pay the price!
kristi
01-02-2013, 07:23 PM
I haven't seen it, but here's another take:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/12/28/black-audiences-white-stars-and-django-unchained/
You really have to suspend disbelief for this movie. This is a quote from this article about the movie. Yes, I agree. It's funny that many of the crazy things I found in the movie he mentions, many of which I pass off as QT's MO. Absurd and a bit disconcerting. I actually saw this movie at a theater in South Baltimore, where I was one of probably five non African Americans in the very full audience, although I did not do a head count. I was very aware of the audience reaction and everyone seemed to appreciate the absurdity of the tale. In fact, the biggest reaction was to one of the rap songs that came on in one scene. I have no idea what the song was, but many there had obviously heard it before. There was a loud collective groan when it started.... Of course, there were all kinds of rap in 1858. Are the stereotypes he continues to perpetuate in his movies productive? Probably not, and they certainly make me cringe. But I enjoy the movie for what it is, and certainly appreciated the honesty regarding the brutality of the slave existence.
The wife, kids, and I went to see it on Christmas day. Great movie, enjoyed by all 4 of us.
Hobo Chang Ba
01-05-2013, 02:24 AM
I found it too long for such a simple story line.
Agreed. It was good but definitely too long. At least it was funny at various points. Though I would have preferred to watch it on HBO then in the theater...
Dave the Brave
01-09-2013, 01:54 PM
I loved every single moment of it. Great acting, dark humor, awesome "Spaghetti Western" soundtrack, including a lovely new track by Ennio Morricone. And as usual, Tarantino's over the top violence. A really great homage to the Italian Western, and some graphic exposure to the dark (no pun) side of slavery in America. A very cool western-action adventure flick, sure to please. Anyone else seen it yet?
As if there was a lighter side to slavery?
DtB
AncientChord
01-09-2013, 02:48 PM
As if there was a lighter side to slavery?
DtB
Oh...please! Of course the exposure of the dark side of slavery is awful and hard to bear watching in this movie. But have you done your research on how Django Unchained has been viewed by audiences, especially black audiences? The overwhelming response is positive. On my first viewing on Xmas day, I sat next to a group of black people who LOVED the movie. We talked just a little, and like me, they laughed at the funny parts, got serious at the horrific parts and cheered at the well deserved scenes of revenge. Why can't people accept that this movie is just a comic book fantasy that also boldly exposes some horrible truths about American slavery? As many others have said, it is NOT a documentary, IT IS a fantasy-action adventure western. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't make the same mistake as Spike Lee has in dissing this film. His negative ranting has backfired on him, and he has tarnished his name further by continuing to keep racism in his own heart. I truly encourage you to see this film. I think you will get a different perspective if you do. Plus, the acting alone by Foxx, Waltz, DiCaprio and especially Jackson is well worth the price of admission.
AncientChord
01-10-2013, 03:17 AM
As if there was a lighter side to slavery?
DtB
I re-evaluated your question, and the answer is an overwhelming YES. In this movie, Samuel L. Jackson brilliantly plays the chillingly horrific house-slave Stephen. Stephen pretty much runs the show at the Candieland plantation and holds sway and power over the less fortunate slaves. There really were privileged house-slaves like Stephen in the real Old South. And lets not forget one one our country's founders, Thomas Jefferson. It is now a confirmed fact through DNA testing that Jefferson had a serious, secret love for a black slave, who bore him children. His black prodigy today are the living proof. Do you think that Jefferson's mistress endured hardship? But I see your point. Overall, slavery in America was a very dark (again no pun ) chapter in U.S. History. Tarantino sure has the balls to produce this exposure in the guise of a Spaghetti Western. This film really does "click" for a lot of people and it should, cause it's a winner!
Progmatic
01-10-2013, 09:04 AM
As if there was a lighter side to slavery?
DtB
yeah sure...it is similar as poverty...lighter side like your wallet and stomach and darker side like the place you live at...;)
AncientChord
01-10-2013, 10:44 AM
BREAKING NEWS: The Oscar nominations are in and....Django Unchained gets 5 nominations...Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Christoph Waltz, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing and Best Original Screenplay- Quentin Tarantino. I'm shocked that Dicaprio and Jackson were NOT nominated and/or recognized. But I am delighted that the movie got 5 nominations. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I have predicted earlier that Steven Spielberg's Lincoln will steal the show and get most Oscar nods. And I stand by that prediction. If any of the top honors are received, IMO Christoph Waltz may possibly clinch the Best Supporting Actor once more. We shall see...???? :huh
AncientChord
02-02-2013, 04:47 PM
Anyone that's still following this great film may want to watch this insightful interview with Quentin Tarantino and its major crew of amazing actors. It was well worth my 40 minutes to view...now I want to see the film for a third time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1QpScB-HJg
went to see it on Christmas day.
Not your typical holiday movie, eh Lino ? I finally saw it last weekend. I did not expect much based on the trailers, but Tarantino pulled it off once again. Superb acting, wonderful dialogue, and a really good soundtrack.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.