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?
Day dawns dark...it now numbers infinity.
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.
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...
-=Will you stand by me against the cold night, or are you afraid of the ice?=-
A different perspective here:
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.
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!!
Last edited by AncientChord; 12-26-2012 at 02:15 PM.
Day dawns dark...it now numbers infinity.
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.Originally Posted by rapidfirerob
Day dawns dark...it now numbers infinity.
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.
Compact Disk brought high fidelity to the masses and audiophiles will never forgive it for that
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!'
Try to GRAPPLE with the fact that the movie wasn't about either the RHINE or the HEART, moe.
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"
President Harry S. Truman
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.
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"
President Harry S. Truman
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!
Q T 's movies are worth 12 bucks just for the dialogue. The other stuff is a bonus.
I'll offer up a review from a journalist that, for the most part*, 'gets it' :
http://www.examiner.com/review/djang...ity-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'
Last edited by -=RTFR666=-; 12-27-2012 at 03:32 PM.
-=Will you stand by me against the cold night, or are you afraid of the ice?=-
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!
Day dawns dark...it now numbers infinity.
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".
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'
Last edited by -=RTFR666=-; 12-27-2012 at 03:28 PM.
-=Will you stand by me against the cold night, or are you afraid of the ice?=-
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"...
Day dawns dark...it now numbers infinity.
If the movie character bears any resemblance to this: 919341-witch_broom_large.jpg Then the confusion is understandable.
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
-=Will you stand by me against the cold night, or are you afraid of the ice?=-
Where did anyone say that?So for those who claim QT is a Coen Bros Wannabe...pass me that tube of glue after you're done huffin' mmkay?
Compact Disk brought high fidelity to the masses and audiophiles will never forgive it for that
- and we may as well suggest QTs work is on par with Verhoeven's Showgirls, eh?
-=Will you stand by me against the cold night, or are you afraid of the ice?=-
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.
Well, here's a couple, anyways, not apparently the one referred to previously but interesting nonetheless...
http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/12/25...amie-foxx.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/mo...tml?ref=movies
-=Will you stand by me against the cold night, or are you afraid of the ice?=-
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks