PDA

View Full Version : Tarantino's Django Unchained



Ian Jane
04-12-2012, 05:11 PM
So the hype machine appears to officially be in motion for this one.

It's due in theaters for Christmas and Sony, who are distributing, released the 1st one sheet image today.

It's simple but different. Better than a photoshop collage of heads or some boring shit like that:

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/3P_PuKmaF1idASfPQH5pww--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD05MzQ7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/251/2012/04/11/Django-Teaser-Final-jpg_233849.jpg

Ian Jane
04-12-2012, 05:14 PM
And from The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/first-django-unchained-poster-quentin-tarantino-leonardo-dicaprio-311583?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thr%2Fnews+%28The+Hollywood+R eporter+-+Top+Stories%29):

"Presumably, those two shadows represent Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx, who play Dr. King Schultz bounty hunter and freed slave Django, respectively, who head back to a plantation to free Foxx's on-screen wife Broomhilda, played by Kerry Washington. She's stuck on the plantation owned by the maniacal Calvin Candie, who is played by Leonardo DiCaprio.

The film will also feature Sacha Baron Cohen, Samuel L. Jackson and Kurt Russell; Joseph Gordon-Levitt just dropped out of the film (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/joseph-gordon-levitt-exits-django-unchained-dark-knight-rises-308795) last week. Django Unchained is slated to hit theaters in December."

Todd Jordan
04-12-2012, 06:59 PM
Oh boy...Jamie Foxx...whoopie...

Mark Tolch
04-13-2012, 07:53 AM
Jamie Foxx as freed slave Django???????

Oddly enough, I was just in a conversation about black actors playing characters "envisioned as being primarily white" or something along those lines, and the racist apprehension involved in these types of castings...call me racist, but not only does a "Django as a former slave" storyline sound not interesting, Jamie Foxx is BALLS. Glad Tarantino took some time off to come back with a reimagining of a long-ago classic placed within the confines of a long-ago genre. I wonder how many times he's managed to work the N-word into THIS script?

george n
04-13-2012, 08:11 AM
The only thing i am looking forward to with this,is that it may encourage some companies to put out some nice westerns to tie in/piggy back on the release.I wonder if thats why blue underground are putting out 'django kill...if you live shoot' especially after lustig said that there will be no SW on blu because the dvds bombed

Ian Jane
04-13-2012, 09:04 AM
George, you're probably on to something.

As far as the freed slave angle goes, yeah, I dunno if this is going to work or not but I had the same apprehension about his take in Inglorious Basters vs. the original Castellari film and wound up really liking it so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm kind of indifferent to Jamie Foxx, so his casting doesn't bug me, but seriously, shouldn't he have cast Samuel L. Jackson or somebody cooler and tougher and more interesting?

BrianS
04-13-2012, 09:31 AM
I've always enjoyed Tarantino's films, so I'd like to see this one. And I guess the 3rd Kill Bill film is after this one???

Todd Jordan
04-13-2012, 09:41 AM
I dig most of Tarantino's stuff, but I'd rather see him use relative unknowns than box-office names. He could get away with it. People go to his movies for him, not so much the actors. Brad Pitt was good in Basterds, but he was Brad Pitt. When Jackson was in Pulp Fiction he was pretty much an unknown and look what it did for him. Lets see some other talent as yet unexploited get a chance. Jaime Foxx annoys me. I can't stand him.

BrianS
04-13-2012, 09:57 AM
The actor that I'm least interested in for this film is DiCaprio. I guess Foxx replaced Will Smith...I'm not too crazy about either of those choices. I agree that using relative unknowns would be ideal.

The Silly Swede
04-13-2012, 12:06 PM
QT is shite and so are all films he has done after Pulp Fiction.

Ian Jane
04-13-2012, 12:13 PM
QT is shite and so are all films he has done after Pulp Fiction.

Wrong. Jackie Brown is the best thing he's made.

Todd Jordan
04-13-2012, 02:46 PM
Wrong. Jackie Brown is the best thing he's made.

I second that claim. That is such a great movie...for a Tarantino movie...

Mark Tolch
04-13-2012, 02:49 PM
I have to agree with you guys....I hated Jackie Brown when i saw it the first time, but that's the one that's stood up the best....

Andrew Monroe
04-13-2012, 04:04 PM
Have to pile on the JACKIE BROWN love, it's really the only one of his films I can revisit these days. I enjoyed IB somewhat in the theater but have never had the desire to revisit it.


I really don't care for the use of the Django name in this thing.

Ian Jane
04-13-2012, 04:11 PM
I really don't care for the use of the Django name in this thing.

I have mixed feelings on that. On one hand, I like it simply because so many other movies ripped off the name during the glory days of the spaghetti western, on the flip side, he's once again blatantly aping what came before him... but then again, so were a lot of the guys who followed in Corbucci and Nero's footsteps.

The Silly Swede
04-13-2012, 05:40 PM
Jackie Brown is not a good movie. It is an adequate version of a novel, with some decent acting. But wtf, just get your panties in a bunch and worship QT and the boring overrated movies about nothing that he continues to churn out.

Alison Jane
04-13-2012, 05:43 PM
What a bunch of grouchy old men you all are. :rolleyes:

The Silly Swede
04-13-2012, 05:55 PM
Hey! It is my god damn constitutional right to be grouchy! And grumpy!

Andrew Monroe
04-13-2012, 09:42 PM
I have mixed feelings on that. On one hand, I like it simply because so many other movies ripped off the name during the glory days of the spaghetti western, on the flip side, he's once again blatantly aping what came before him... but then again, so were a lot of the guys who followed in Corbucci and Nero's footsteps.

You're right of course, the name was used in countless films back then due to the popularity of the Corbucci film. Hell, the Germans would retitle any fucking thing as a Django film in those days. Thing is with Tarantino I get this leach vibe when he uses it, knowing the fans of the spaghetti western will be at least intrigued. I am under no illusions that spaghetti western fans are a major audience these days, but it still doesn't sit right with me. It's much like the mixed feelings I have about him using those fantastic old Italian soundtrack cues, in a way it's great to hear them in a theater today (I had chills hearing that piece from THE MERCENARY), but at the same time it bugs the hell out of me. They can be jarring, throw you out of the film as you recall the original scene where you heard them. I really think the reason a lot of us dig JACKIE BROWN so much is because he was working from a very well written novel, imo he's much better served with outside material.

Ian Jane
04-14-2012, 09:20 AM
Some pretty valid points, Andrew. I don't know that I was ever thrown out of one of the movies where he recycled music, not that I can recall at least - though then again, I guess to a certain extent I might have been distracted (watching movie... watching movie... HEY I KNOW THAT SONG!!! watching movie... watching movie...).

I also think a huge part of Jackie Brown's success stems from Grier and Forster. The supporting cast are awesome too but he got amazing performances out of his leads in that movie, way more so than any of his other films in my opinion.

Andrew Monroe
04-14-2012, 12:14 PM
I also think a huge part of Jackie Brown's success stems from Grier and Forster. The supporting cast are awesome too but he got amazing performances out of his leads in that movie, way more so than any of his other films in my opinion.

I agree, those two were fantastic, in fact it's probably my favorite performance from Forster. I think it's those two actors and a great story to work from.

The Silly Swede
04-15-2012, 08:38 AM
I agree, those two were fantastic, in fact it's probably my favorite performance from Forster.

Have you seen him as the badguy in The Delta Force? He does not only play a slimey arab. He becomes one!

Andrew Monroe
04-16-2012, 09:41 AM
Have you seen him as the badguy in The Delta Force? He does not only play a slimey arab. He becomes one!

Yeah, he was GREAT in that one too. Wasn't expecting him to own that role like he did.

paul h.
04-18-2012, 08:24 PM
I really like the head-on car crash in DEATH PROOF. Brilliant.

Curious what the dialogue will be like in western period piece from Tarantino.


Crayons taste like purple.

Ian Jane
04-19-2012, 09:13 AM
I really like the head-on car crash in DEATH PROOF. Brilliant.

As much as I don't think it's even close to his strongest movie, I'd say that sequence is one of his strongest moments. It's incredibly well edited and holy shit does it work well. The rest of the movie, outside of Kurt, is too talky for what it is, but yeah, that one scene is killer.

Todd Jordan
04-19-2012, 10:35 AM
As much as I don't think it's even close to his strongest movie, I'd say that sequence is one of his strongest moments.

The big car chase was really good to see. I love a good car chase.

Ian Jane
04-26-2012, 02:32 PM
EW.com (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/26/first-look-two-photos-revealed-from-quentin-tarantinos-django-unchained-exclusive/) posted the first images from the movie today.

http://ewinsidemovies.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/django-unchained-2_510.jpg

http://ewinsidemovies.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/django-unchained_510.jpg

Ian Jane
05-10-2012, 03:14 PM
From Twitch (http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/05/kurt-russell-and-sacha-baron-cohen-exit-tarantinos-django-unchained.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TwitchEverything+%28Twitch%3A +Everything%29):

With production already well under way Quentin Tarantino is suddenly down two actors on Django Unchained with word that both Kurt Russell and Sacha Baron Cohen have exited the film.

Cohen's issue comes down to scheduling - he's currently juggling the press tour for The Dictator while shooting Les Miserables - while no reason at all has been given for Russell's departure and rumors are circulating that Tarantino may simply cut the Russell role out of the film entirely rather than re-cast.

Todd Jordan
05-10-2012, 03:23 PM
I hope Russell refused to say/do something and said fuck off to Quinny. Not because I don't like Cunny, but because I want Kurt's departure to be bad-assed. You don't fuck with MacReady/Snake.

Mark Tolch
05-11-2012, 09:44 PM
It's gonna end up being a Leo DiCaprio/Jamie Foxx joint, and I'm not gonna care about it in the least. first Tarantino film in years that I haven't even been remotely interested in.

Derrick King
05-11-2012, 11:19 PM
I read that Russell hadn't filmed anything and his part has been merged with the character played by Walton Goggins.

Roderick
05-11-2012, 11:34 PM
It's gonna end up being a Leo DiCaprio/Jamie Foxx joint, and I'm not gonna care about it in the least. first Tarantino film in years that I haven't even been remotely interested in.

It's no worse than DiCaprio and Diaz in Gangs of New York and if I recall correctly you love that steaming pile.

That said, I'm not excited about the pairing either.

Mark Tolch
05-12-2012, 11:13 AM
It's no worse than DiCaprio and Diaz in Gangs of New York and if I recall correctly you love that steaming pile.

That said, I'm not excited about the pairing either.

It's definitely not worse than DiCaprio and Diaz. And I did like GANGS.....but unless Daniel Day Lewis shows up in Django Unchained, GANGS is still probably gonna be the better film.

Roderick
05-12-2012, 01:53 PM
Man, I can't understand why everybody is so gaga over DDL. Guy is a huge over actor. But not in a good way.

I'm not a fan of Foxx, but I can handle him better than Will Smith.

Mark Tolch
05-12-2012, 04:09 PM
I don't like Foxx, but also like him better than Will Smith, who i don't think can act at all.

Count me in as gaga over DDL. :-D

Dom D
05-12-2012, 06:47 PM
I don't get the cyncism on this one. There hasn't been a good western in years but Tarantino's the man to bring them back. If he could revive Travolta's career- albeit temporarily- then he can sure as hell do the same for the Western.

The Silly Swede
05-12-2012, 07:05 PM
I don't get the cyncism on this one. There hasn't been a good western in years but Tarantino's the man to bring them back. If he could revive Travolta's career- albeit temporarily- then he can sure as hell do the same for the Western.

I have to disagree. QT is the exact opposite of what I want from a western. Westerns for me are silent and macho styled. QTs movies are talk, talk and foot fetishes. They are also styled more towards showing off his vast knowlegde of films which he makes stupid and unneccessary homages to throughout, which only detracts from the freshness of his own films, as they feel like highlight reels of his VHS watching days.

Dom D
05-12-2012, 08:05 PM
Maybe there's room for a little bit of talk in a Western... The mans favourite film of all time is The Good The Bad And The Ugly so hopefully he's absorbed a bit of that over the years. Anyway I'm looking forward to it. With this and Cosmopoolis there's some films to look forward to this year.

But I told a lie with that "there hasn't been a good western in years" line. True Grit was solid.

Ian Jane
05-13-2012, 09:35 AM
I'm looking forward to it too. I haven no issues with the casting really. I think this could be fun.

Ian Jane
05-28-2012, 06:53 PM
The Tarantino.info (http://www.tarantino.info/2012/05/28/new-official-pictures-from-django-unchained/) site has some interesting pictures up today that originated on Empire (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=34104).

The most interesting on is this:

3259

Say what you will about Tarantino, but that picture makes me happy.

Ian Jane
06-06-2012, 12:26 PM
Twitch uploaded some footage that showed on ET here (http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/06/first-footage-from-tarantinos-django-unchained.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TwitchEverything+%28Twitch%3A +Everything%29).

The trailer launches today on Fandango.com.

Dom D
06-07-2012, 07:47 AM
And here is the trailer. It's an odd beast:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/django-unchained/trailer

Ian Jane
06-07-2012, 09:14 AM
After seeing Jamie Fox in the trailer, I can see why he was cast. He looks kinda cracked out and unhinged in some of those shots, and I mean that in a good way. That first shot of Leo made me laugh and nice use of the original 'DJANGO' font towards the end there. Nice to see Nero show up at the end.

Ian Jane
06-13-2012, 10:13 AM
The new international trailer has been uploaded here (http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/06/check-out-the-international-trailer-for-tarantinos-django-unchained.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TwitchEverything+%28Twitch%3A +Everything%29).

Roderick
07-14-2012, 06:31 PM
A DC comics mini series is in the works. (http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/14/comic-con-quentin-tarantino-announces-django-unchained-comic)

The Silly Swede
07-15-2012, 04:50 AM
I am confused after watching the trailer. Why did he go with Django instead of Boss Nigger as the title? Cause Boss Nigger would have been so much more fitting.

Ian Jane
07-17-2012, 09:04 AM
A video from the SDCC 2012 panel:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fMQ2DrTu0o

Ian Jane
10-10-2012, 10:25 AM
So apparently Tarantino won the Hollywood Screenwriter Award for this movie. Details here (http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/quentin-tarantino-wins-fordjango-unchained-screenplay/).

"The Hollywood Reporter reports that Oscar winning writer/director Quentin Tarantino will receive the Hollywood Screenwriter Award for the screenplay of his upcoming film Django Unchained. The director will take home the statue at the 16th annual Hollywood Film Awards, when the ceremony is held October 22nd at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles.

The Hollywood Film Festival founder and executive director Carlos de Abreu, along with the help of an advisory team, determine the winners based on work released within the calendar year, as well as recognizing individuals for career achievements. De Abreu told THR: ”We are delighted to have this opportunity to celebrate Quentin for his unique and exceptional creative vision."

sukebanboy
10-10-2012, 10:57 AM
"We are delighted to have this opportunity to celebrate Quentin for his unique and exceptional creative vision."

Not sure that blatently "borrowing" characters/scenarios/plots from a host of other movies could be seen as UNIQUE ....but at least he does it well!!

Ian Jane
10-11-2012, 12:58 PM
New trailer!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ztD3mRMdqSw

paul h.
10-11-2012, 03:33 PM
Merry Xmas.

sukebanboy
10-12-2012, 11:20 AM
Getting anxious to see this one.....

Richard--W
10-14-2012, 04:18 AM
I'm eager to see DJANGO UNCHAINED, but I hope it has more substance than just the posturing and strutting suggested by the trailer.

I want another experience like KILLER JOE and I want it now.

Ian Jane
10-23-2012, 12:05 PM
New international trailer just released.


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

Ian Jane
11-12-2012, 02:52 PM
New poster (meh).

Ian Jane
11-12-2012, 02:53 PM
Also the movie is featured on the cover of the new Fangoria (I dunno what the movie has to do with horror - I guess maybe it'll be gory).

Ian Jane
12-14-2012, 01:09 PM
The Weinstein Group have made the screenplay available as a free download on their website here (http://twcguilds.com/assets/screenplay/django/screenplay.pdf).

Andrew Monroe
12-14-2012, 01:18 PM
The new Fangoria also has a 2 page essay by Tarantino on Corbucci's violent westerns. It's well worth reading even if you just check it out in the bookstore. He also singles out Sergio Garrone for some love, mentioning NO ROOM TO DIE and VENDETTA AT DAWN as specific favorites.

Totally not related to this thread but the mag also has a cool interview with Lesleh Donaldson and she talks about making CURTAINS, HAPPY B-DAY TO ME, and FUNERAL HOME.

sukebanboy
12-14-2012, 10:03 PM
Early reviews say that FOXX is the weak link in this movie.....Wish he could have got Will Smith like he wanted...far more charismatic!

Derrick King
12-23-2012, 03:46 AM
First part of an interesting interview with Tarantino (http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-1-django-trilogy) where he talks about BIRTH OF A NATION and doing another WWII film, that sounds a lot more like the original INGLORIOUS BASTARDS than INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS ended being:

Henry Louis Gates Jr.: You've targeted Nazis in Inglourious Basterds and slave owners in Django Unchained. What's next on the list of oppressors to off?

Quentin Tarantino: I don't know exactly when I'm going to do it, but there's something about this that would suggest a trilogy. My original idea for Inglourious Basterds way back when was that this [would be] a huge story that included the [smaller] story that you saw in the film, but also followed a bunch of black troops, and they had been f--ked over by the American military and kind of go apes--t. They basically -- the way Lt. Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt) and the Basterds are having an "Apache resistance" -- [the] black troops go on an Apache warpath and kill a bunch of white soldiers and white officers on a military base and are just making a warpath to Switzerland.

So that was always going to be part of it. And I was going to do it as a miniseries, and that was going to be one of the big storylines. When I decided to try to turn it into a movie, that was a section I had to take out to help tame my material. I have most of that written. It's ready to go; I just have to write the second half of it.

HLG: That might very well be the third of the trilogy.

QT: That would be the third of the trilogy. It would be [connected to] Inglourious Basterds, too, because Inglourious Basterds are in it, but it is about the soldiers. It would be called Killer Crow or something like that.

HLG: When would it be set?

QT: In '44. It would be after Normandy.

and here is Frank Ocean's unused song (http://frankocean.tumblr.com/post/38601782955/django-was-ill-without-it)

Robin Bougie
12-23-2012, 05:00 AM
Saw it the other night. Loved it. I only like JACKIE BROWN and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS more from the QT filmography.

Has nothing to do with the DJANGO movies, and yet it is perfectly suited to the title. Especially when you consider how many dozens of Italian and Spanish films were made with the DJANGO title, featuring characters that had nothing to do with the original Nero character. It falls right in with that group like a snug little bug in a rug.

Scott
12-27-2012, 12:49 PM
Me and the wife saw this on Christmas, both of us thought it was really fun. I fell out of love with Tarantino around KILL BILL. I felt like the emperor's clothes were showing on that one. I haven't seen anything he's done since but this was prettty good. I felt like it didn't indulge too much in homage call-outs. Sam Jackson and Christopher Waltz were both great.

I spent the days leading up to Christmas watching ROOTS on BET and reading Black Panther comics (the recent series where he takes over for Daredevil, with art by Francesco Francavilla).

Randy G
12-28-2012, 03:50 AM
I was unsure of this one, I only liked about 1/2 of Inglorious Basterds, but you've changed my mind. I'll try and catch it this weekend.

sukebanboy
12-28-2012, 03:59 AM
SPIKE LEE being a gimp again....against this movie as he sees it as...shit, let HIM say in his own words...


"American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western.It Was A Holocaust.My Ancestors Are Slaves.Stolen From Africa.I Will Honor Them." "It'd be disrespectful to my ancestors to see that film. That's the only thing I'm going to say. I can't disrespect my ancestors,"

Robin Bougie
12-28-2012, 07:39 AM
That's funny, I don't remember any famous Jews acting that way about INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. In fact, all of my Jewish friends loved the movie.

Mind you, they actually SAW the movie enough to know they liked it. Who gives a damn about someones opinion on a movie they haven't even fucking SEEN? Reminds me of the protesters outside theaters showing LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST back in the day.

sukebanboy
12-28-2012, 08:29 AM
Thats all well and good Robin, but you should know by now that NO ONE is allowed to make a movie about a black guy without Spike Lee's OK...I guess Quentin forgot about that , that is why Spike is all pissed.....

The Silly Swede
12-28-2012, 05:08 PM
Spike Lee IS the voice of all black people, past or present. Never anyone forget that!

Robert W
12-29-2012, 10:17 AM
Had an interesting conversation at work the other day. A couple of my co-workers were talking about going to see Django Unchained. I'd asked them if they'd seen the original. They said they never even knew there was one. Shocked by such cinematic ignorance, I told them they needed to get themselves on Youtube asap and check the original Django out.

Looking back at that conversation, it struck me that the bulk of Tarantino's main stream success has sort of been predicated on the general level of ignorance prevalent among contemporary audiences.

Wllm Clys
12-29-2012, 01:19 PM
Looking back at that conversation, it struck me that the bulk of Tarantino's main stream success has sort of been predicated on the general level of ignorance prevalent among contemporary audiences.

That's a very nice way of putting it. What most people see as original finds, are (in 50% of the cases) hommages to films contemporary audiences have never heard of and probably aren't interested in because 1. they're 'old' 2. they're non-American 3. they're B-films. But can you really expect them to know about all those films like Sex & Fury, Thriller, City On Fire, ...? There was a moment when we - and by 'we' I mean people with a genuine and deep interest in all kinds of films - didn't know about them either. Heck, I still haven't seen City On Fire, I only found out about it one month ago, and a lot of his more subtle hommages and tributes probably go right by me.

That being said, I really like two of his films: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs.

Robert W
12-29-2012, 01:30 PM
I suppose it depends on whether you like Tarantino's films or not. In my case, I don't, so I tend to see him more as a cinematic bunco artist than as a trendy purveyor of "wink, wink/ nudge. nudge" hipsterisms. Zombie, Roth, and Rodriguez as well.

Richard--W
12-29-2012, 01:47 PM
I see QT as both a trendy purveryor of wink / nudge hipsterisms as well as a cinematic bunco artist (bunco artist -- there's a term I don't hear everyday). I don't like QT's films, either. Maybe it's the personality of the director that I find offputting. Always posturing and strutting and faking it. Every microsecond is about being cool and the next kill. How dangerous am I? Here's how. He needs to find another emotional dynamic in life to make films about. I like the ideas and the structures for the films, but not the films. I thought RESERVOIR DOGS was ugly shallow and stupid and PULP FICTION nothing more than a fetish. But I loved JACKIE BROWN, in part because it didn't depend on imitation for its existence. The Bridget Fonda character reminds me of some women I've met.

Robert W
12-29-2012, 04:51 PM
Richard, you really hit the nail on the head with your observation about Tarantinio being overly self-conscious about keeping his on-screen characters "cool." I mean if Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were anything, they were merely exercises in empty posturing. That said, I do think Tarantino is, from a technical aspect, a very talented filmmaker though. But technical virtuosity doesn't necessarily equate into good filmmaking, right? Out of the films of his I've seen, Reservoir Dogs struck me a very competent first film, although I don't think it holds up very well to repeat viewings, Pulp Fiction was just plain annoying, and Jackie Brown seemed the most accessible film he's made to date, probably because it had the best ensemble cast he's assembled to date.

As for Taarantino the person, well from what I've seen of him on interviews he comes across as one of the single most annoying personalities working today. As to how much of that is just schtick or how much of it is actually him, I, of course, can't say, but I can say that whatever it is it's really, really annoying to watch/listen to.

Rakesh R.
12-29-2012, 04:52 PM
Thats all well and good Robin, but you should know by now that NO ONE is allowed to make a movie about a black guy without Spike Lee's OK...I guess Quentin forgot about that , that is why Spike is all pissed.....

The weird thing about the Spike/Quentin feud is that Quentin had a role in "Girl 6". If Spike really had an issue with Quentin using the N word, why would he have bothered having him in his film( and let's face it, "Pulp Fiction" had some N word zingers). Oh, well...I do enjoy the works of both directors and look forward to seeing Spike's take on "Oldboy". And, yes, I did enjoy "Django Unchained"( an extended version would be interesting).

Robert W
12-29-2012, 04:54 PM
Lee's comments seemed to me to have been made simply to put himself back in the public eye.

sukebanboy
12-30-2012, 04:40 AM
Lee's comments seemed to me to have been made simply to put himself back in the public eye.

Sure......he is still trying to be "relevant" and have an opinion about things......but surely people have moved on from this sort of hardcore "everything is oppressing the black man" type comments and way of thinking....Not saying the problems have gone away, but people have stopped reaching for the "oppression" card for every little thing....

Robert W
12-30-2012, 08:39 AM
I doubt anyone under 20 even knows who Spike Lee is. :)

sukebanboy
12-30-2012, 09:35 AM
I doubt anyone under 20 even knows who Spike Lee is. :)

Careful there Robert...He will be boycotting YOU next!:biggrin:

Robert W
12-30-2012, 12:43 PM
Careful there Robert...He will be boycotting YOU next!:biggrin:

And I'm sure Spike Lee shakes his fists at teenagers and yells at them to get off his lawn too. Really, the guy is an ideological fossil whose best filmmaking days are all far, far behind him now.

Richard--W
12-30-2012, 02:58 PM
Let's everybody stop picking on Spike Lee.
His heart is in the right place.
Even when he doesn't get the fine-line political distinctions, he's a nice person.
If you must pick on somebody, pick on ... let's see ... how about Todd Jordan.

Randy G
12-30-2012, 03:43 PM
I liked DJANGO UNCHAINED a lot more than INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, although the best parts of IB were probably better than DU.

I found DJANGO more focused and consistent although it also suffers from less-than-great plotting, particularly at the end with feels dragged out and anti-climatic. The Mandigo element didn't seem particularly well thought-out or interesting, which weakens the middle stretch of the film as well.

I think the criticisms of Fox are misplaced, his performance is quite good, he certainly bring more grit to the role than Smith would have I think. I think the flaw with his character is more due to the script which is unbalanced with too much of the focus falling on Walz's character (which also fatally weakens the last section of the film). Although I like Walz's performance I'm not really sure if his character is necessary to the story which should really be more focused on Fox. DeCaprio is actually one of the strongest elements of the film, his performance here is one of his best.

Also, I'm no expert of the pre-Civil War South but I'm pretty sure the Southern slave-owning characters would have never allowed him to sit at the same dinning table as themselves. Jackson's character is a bit too comically broad, particularly in his 'Yes, Sir!' scene with DeCaprio at the dinner table (I understand the point of the scene, but it was just too obviously done). It was also a bit lame to see Tarantino resort to the action movie cliche/impossibility of gunshots sending characters flying several feet. His use of hip-hop on the soundtrack is purposefully an anachronism but unlike the use of electric instruments and psych-rock elements in a SW soundtrack I just don't think it works very well here (perhaps an instrumental hip-hop soundtrack like what RZA did for Ghost Dog would have worked better).

Odd thing here was how little Tarantino seemed to draw on the Western genre, both classic, revisionist 70s and SW. I don't mean merely his typical fetish for name-dropping filmic references, which he keeps admirably under control here compared to IE, Deathproof and Kill Bill 2. I mean in the lack of attention to framing, outside of some of the riding sequences at the beginning of the film there is little attention to landscape and the stately strong visual images that mark most of the great Westerns. He also doesn't bring much sense of tension to his gun fights. Overall I don't think that Tarantino has much feel for the genre but the film is still one of his best since Kill Bill 1.

Randy G
12-30-2012, 04:06 PM
Really, the guy is an ideological fossil whose best filmmaking days are all far, far behind him now.

I wouldn't consider 2002, when Lee made the excellent and underrated 25th HOUR as 'far, far behind.'

Lee has always been saying dumb things since day one, his view of the character dynamics of DO THE RIGHT THING are very odd, as if what he intended and what he filmed are two different things (I think DO THE RIGHT THING is one of the best American films of the 80s). Ditto JUNGLE FEVER.

But just like Tarantino what counts are the films, I don't really care what the personality of a director is like and it seems to me that a lot of the dislike of Tarantino one finds in the fan community are based more on his personality than his films. And I say that even though I'm lukewarm on almost all his post-JACKIE BROWN work.

I wouldn't count Lee down yet, you never know when a director can have a return to form: look at Gus Van Sant and Lynch, both directors I had written off who then returned to form with great films like MULHOLLAND DR. and ELEPHANT.

Paul L
12-30-2012, 04:10 PM
I see QT as both a trendy purveryor of wink / nudge hipsterisms as well as a cinematic bunco artist (bunco artist -- there's a term I don't hear everyday). I don't like QT's films, either. Maybe it's the personality of the director that I find offputting. Always posturing and strutting and faking it. Every microsecond is about being cool and the next kill. How dangerous am I? Here's how. He needs to find another emotional dynamic in life to make films about. I like the ideas and the structures for the films, but not the films. I thought RESERVOIR DOGS was ugly shallow and stupid and PULP FICTION nothing more than a fetish. But I loved JACKIE BROWN, in part because it didn't depend on imitation for its existence. The Bridget Fonda character reminds me of some women I've met.
I tend to steer clear of discussions of Tarantino's films, but I agree with this wholeheartedly, Richard. When PULP FICTION suprisingly received the Palme d'Or, I was happy to see it beat out the Kieslowski picture - not because of any dislike of Kieslowski or any great love of PULP FICTION, but because it seemed like a threshold had been crossed and both the bloated 1980s Hollywood blockbuster and the (at the time, seemingly) 'precious' art picture had been defeated by something that at the time seemed new and exciting - very much 'of the moment'. With hindsight, the opposite seems true, and I wish RED had received that Palme d'Or in '94.

However, I too love JACKIE BROWN, which has a depth and maturity lacking in Tarantino's other films, I feel - and I think this is in large part due to its basis in Elmore Leonard's novel, rather than anything Tarantino brought to the table. There's plenty of pomo play in JACKIE BROWN too, but it doesn't drown out the pathos of the thing. I wonder if some of the negative reactions to JACKIE BROWN (both by Spike Lee and others) made Tarantino retrench into the adolescent agit-p(r)op stylisation of KILL BILL and his subsequent films. There's something in JACKIE BROWN that, had Tarantino carried along the same lines, would have led him to develop into a very interesting filmmaker, rather than a sidebar in the history of New Hollywood.

Re: Spike Lee. I think Lee's CLOCKERS is the film most of Tarantino's pictures dream about being.

That said, I'll see DJANGO UNCHAINED when it comes out over here.

Randy G
12-30-2012, 04:15 PM
CLOCKERS is another fine film from Lee, although I do think the Price book is better.

I'd like to see Tarantino do an adaptation of a writer close to Elmore Leonard's heart: George V. Higgins. I think he could do an excellent job as they both share a taste for rambling, yet vivid and often obscene dialogue.

I think one should give Tarantino more credit for JACKIE BROWN though, although he certainly benefited from the strong material that Leonard supplied many others have messed up a good book in the past. Tarantino also did a very good job with his actors in that film.

Paul L
12-30-2012, 04:20 PM
CLOCKERS is another fine film from Lee, although I do think the Price book is better.
The Price book is amazing. I haven't read it in nearly 20 years, but still remember it vividly.

I'd like to see Tarantino do an adaptation of a writer close to Elmore Leonard's heart: George V. Higgins. I think he could do an excellent job as they both share a taste for rambling, yet vivid and often obscene dialogue.
I think Tarantino could work well with a Higgins source novel too. Based on JACKIE BROWN, I was kinda hoping that DJANGO UNCHAINED would have some basis in Leonard's FORTY LASHES LESS ONE - which Tarantino has often suggested he would like to adapt. However, that seems not to be the case. But given the task of delivering an adaptation of another writer like Leonard (eg, George V Higgins), I think Tarantino could pull another JACKIE BROWN.

Like you say, there's some connect in JACKIE BROWN between Leonard's material and Tarantino - perhaps a filmmaker who at that point in his career was beginning to feel that his first two films had been 'cons' of some kind saw something in the themes within Leonard's work of ageing and the sense that the characters' best years are behind them. The performances in JACKIE BROWN are very good indeed - but then, it's such a good cast to begin with (Forster, Grier, De Niro - before his decline, Keaton - a phenomenally underrated actor).

The other day, I was rereading Brad Stevens' book about Abel Ferrara, and recalled that Ferrara once wanted to adapt GET SHORTY before Sonnenfeld got his hands on the material - now, that would have been an interesting adaptation of Leonard's work, I reckon.

Richard--W
12-30-2012, 04:35 PM
Anyone notice a similarity to THE LEGEND OF NIGGER CHARLEY (1973)?
For those who haven't seen it, the plot synopses are similar.

Paul L
12-30-2012, 04:40 PM
Did you notice a similarity to THE LEGEND OF NIGGER CHARLEY (1973)?
You may not have seen that, but the plot synopses are similar.
I have indeed seen THE LEGEND OF NIGGER CHARLEY, but it was many years ago. Funnily enough, I recently finished reading George Pelecanos' newish novel WHAT IT WAS, which references THE LEGEND OF NIGGER CHARLEY a couple of times (along with BUCK AND THE PREACHER).

Richard--W
12-30-2012, 04:49 PM
I tend to steer clear of discussions of Tarantino's films, but I agree with this wholeheartedly, Richard. When PULP FICTION suprisingly received the Palme d'Or, I was happy to see it beat out the Kieslowski picture - not because of any dislike of Kieslowski or any great love of PULP FICTION, but because it seemed like a threshold had been crossed and both the bloated 1980s Hollywood blockbuster and the (at the time, seemingly) 'precious' art picture had been defeated by something that at the time seemed new and exciting - very much 'of the moment'. With hindsight, the opposite seems true, and I wish RED had received that Palme d'Or in '94.

However, I too love JACKIE BROWN, which has a depth and maturity lacking in Tarantino's other films, I feel - and I think this is in large part due to its basis in Elmore Leonard's novel, rather than anything Tarantino brought to the table. There's plenty of pomo play in JACKIE BROWN too, but it doesn't drown out the pathos of the thing. I wonder if some of the negative reactions to JACKIE BROWN (both by Spike Lee and others) made Tarantino retrench into the adolescent agit-p(r)op stylisation of KILL BILL and his subsequent films. There's something in JACKIE BROWN that, had Tarantino carried along the same lines, would have led him to develop into a very interesting filmmaker, rather than a sidebar in the history of New Hollywood.

Re: Spike Lee. I think Lee's CLOCKERS is the film most of Tarantino's pictures dream about being.

That said, I'll see DJANGO UNCHAINED when it comes out over here.


Maybe that's what bothers me. QT is too old and his actors are too old to be behaving in such adolescent, juvenile fashion. His mindset and behavior are juvenile even as he depicts an adult world. But that is a larger problem in American cinema. American cinema is adolescent. I agree the depth and maturity of JACKIE BROWN derives from the source novel. That would be a good place for QT to return to.

I wouldn't mind seeing Spike Lee adapt an Elmore Leonard novel, or a Loren Estleman novel for that matter. Estleman is also a fine script writer although nobody knows it yet.

I'll have to catch up with CLOCKERS.

Robert W
12-30-2012, 05:42 PM
I wouldn't consider 2002, when Lee made the excellent and underrated 25th HOUR as 'far, far behind.'

Lee has always been saying dumb things since day one, his view of the character dynamics of DO THE RIGHT THING are very odd, as if what he intended and what he filmed are two different things (I think DO THE RIGHT THING is one of the best American films of the 80s). Ditto JUNGLE FEVER.

But just like Tarantino what counts are the films, I don't really care what the personality of a director is like and it seems to me that a lot of the dislike of Tarantino one finds in the fan community are based more on his personality than his films. And I say that even though I'm lukewarm on almost all his post-JACKIE BROWN work.

I wouldn't count Lee down yet, you never know when a director can have a return to form: look at Gus Van Sant and Lynch, both directors I had written off who then returned to form with great films like MULHOLLAND DR. and ELEPHANT.

Without going off on a tangent, I'll just say Lee is just another two-bit race hustler whose films were only made watchable thanks to the genius of Ernest Dickerson's cinematography.

As for Lynch's films, I'm not a fan.

Robert W
12-30-2012, 05:50 PM
Paul L wrote,

However, I too love JACKIE BROWN, which has a depth and maturity lacking in Tarantino's other films, I feel - and I think this is in large part due to its basis in Elmore Leonard's novel, rather than anything Tarantino brought to the table. There's plenty of pomo play in JACKIE BROWN too, but it doesn't drown out the pathos of the thing. I wonder if some of the negative reactions to JACKIE BROWN (both by Spike Lee and others) made Tarantino retrench into the adolescent agit-p(r)op stylisation of KILL BILL and his subsequent films. There's something in JACKIE BROWN that, had Tarantino carried along the same lines, would have led him to develop into a very interesting filmmaker, rather than a sidebar in the history of New Hollywood.

I wasn't aware that Jackie Brown had received much in the way of negative press. Still, it remains Tarantino's best film, thanks in no small parts to the impeccable performances given by Greer and Forster. I also think Jackie Brown was the only time Tarantino was ever successful at recreating any semblance of that 60s/70s exploitation flavor. Whereas in his other films he seemed content to just steal shamelessly from others, Jackie Brown, by contrast, seemed like a genuine expression of genre filmmaking, if that makes any sense.

Paul L
12-30-2012, 05:52 PM
What you say makes perfect sense, Robert, and I agree completely.

Paul L wrote,


I wasn't aware that Jackie Brown had received much in the way of negative press
We're going back 15 years, but leaving aside Lee's outspoken criticism of the film, I remember reading/hearing many criticisms of it on television and in newspapers - largely, I always felt, because it wasn't another PULP FICTION.

Robert W
12-30-2012, 06:00 PM
What you say makes perfect sense, Robert, and I agree completely.

We're going back 15 years, but leaving aside Lee's outspoken criticism of the film, I remember reading/hearing many criticisms of it on television and in newspapers - largely, I always felt, because it wasn't another PULP FICTION.

Oh well, there's no accounting for bad taste. :)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Jackie Brown will be the only film of his people will choose to discuss seriously in the years to come.

Mark Tolch
12-30-2012, 10:43 PM
Oh well, there's no accounting for bad taste. :)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Jackie Brown will be the only film of his people will choose to discuss seriously in the years to come.

I loved Pulp Fiction, and hated Jackie Brown...saw them both in the theatre...and PULP is the one that's now almost unwatchable. I love Jackie Brown. :-)

Robin Bougie
12-31-2012, 03:29 AM
QT should thank Spike for all the press. He's laughing all the way to the bank. I haven't seen this much discussion about a movie in the social media circles in a while. Well, not since that shitty INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS movie made all those people riot and start killing each other.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/antoine-fuqua-defends-quentin-tarantino-407123

Andrew Monroe
01-02-2013, 08:54 AM
We spent our New Year's Day in the theater with this. I came away with mostly positive feelings about it, but like his last 3 films - and really all of them aside from JACKIE BROWN - I suspect I will never watch this again. It has some great moments but they're buried in a ton of gab and just plain wrong bits. It's also too long, I was getting antsy by the two hour mark and it went on for damn near another hour. The scene near the end was totally not needed, seemed tacked on so Tarantino could have a cameo and put John Jarratt in it. It's certainly got the bloodiest gun battles I've seen in a major film (I hesitate to call this a western, it just doesn't feel much like one to me), they got cartoonish. On the plus side, it was thrilling to see Franco Nero up there on the big screen in a big time picture and much as I'm burnt out on QT's repurposing sw music, I did indeed get a thrill to hear DJANGO's title in the opening (and Bacalov gets a nice BIG credit there at the start). I also liked his use of the title song from HIS NAME WAS KING, I've always thought that piece somehow sounded like a mix of spaghetti western and blaxploitation and it's perfect for QT.

Wllm Clys
01-02-2013, 09:23 AM
I've read a couple of reviews on IMDB and I've noticed that people who use words like 'Corbucci', 'Franco Nero', 'Blaxploitation', 'Django (1966)' rate the film a lot lower.

Robin Bougie
01-02-2013, 11:37 AM
What I've noticed from chatting on social media is that the people who hate the movie the most also happen to be the ones who haven't seen it yet.

Robin Bougie
01-02-2013, 11:51 AM
http://youtu.be/sKmWJlhOheE

Randy G
01-02-2013, 04:07 PM
I'm burnt out on QT's repurposing sw music, I did indeed get a thrill to hear DJANGO's title in the opening (and Bacalov gets a nice BIG credit there at the start).

Totally agree, movie nerd bliss.

Horace Cordier
01-02-2013, 05:12 PM
I've read a couple of reviews on IMDB and I've noticed that people who use words like 'Corbucci', 'Franco Nero', 'Blaxploitation', 'Django (1966)' rate the film a lot lower.

I know who all those people and genres are, consider THE GREAT SILENCE a masterpiece and will happily watch Fred Williamson read the phone book and I loved DJANGO UNCHAINED.

Me and Tarantino is like a weird on and off relationship with an unpredictable ex. I loved DOGS but got pissed when I saw CITY ON FIRE, thought PULP was overrated crap, skipped JACKIE, saw 10 minutes of KILL BILL and thought it was too stupid for words, punched the theater seat in rage at the long-winded ineptitude of GRINDHOUSE and finally fell in love with BASTERDS.

DJANGO is genuinely fun, loaded with truly subversive elements and has two great "all-in" performances - DiCaprio's despicable but silver tongued racist plantation owner and Sam Jackson in a both ballsy and brave turn as a vicious and clever Uncle Tom house slave who's a far better manipulator than his "master".

Tarantino needs a proper editor and its far too long with some problematical pacing and narrative focus issues but its a worthy follow up to BASTERDS.

Richard--W
01-09-2013, 10:43 PM
Saw DJANGO UNCHAINED in Phoenix late last night.

The last time I saw this film it was called THE LEGEND OF NIG GER CHARLEY (1973). QT has added several curlyemacues of his own, but it's essentially THE LEGEND OF NIG GER CHARLEY with a name change. There's no influence or material from the original Django films (that I've seen) in it, except for a brief and very welcome contribution from Franco Nero whose presence acts like an endorsement that was evidently important to QT. Apart from Nero I see no reason to even associate DJANGO UNCHAINED with the original Django films.

There's nothing special about the photography or locations that weren't done better in the recent made-for-cable LOVE COMES SOFTLY series of films. All the same locations are used. QT does invoke a 1960s nostalgia, right down to determinedly inaccurate costuming. I've never seen a Civil War-era film that looked and felt less like the period. The nostalgia takes me out of the period and makes me aware than I'm watching an artifice; unlike HEAVEN'S GATE (1980) and GETTYSBURG (1993), for example, in which the utilitarian design and costuming makes me believe in the period. The CGI-generated snow at the Melody Ranch town-set was a nice touch, however.

This is Leonardo DiCaprio's film. I would describe his character and appearance as a silver-tongued devil. Not only does he get the physicality of the southern aristocrat right down to the minutest gesture, but his period mannerisms are fun to watch. Wonder of wonders, he makes QT's verbose dialogue flow trippingly off the tongue. No one has ever delivered QT's dialogue with more aplomb than DiCaprio. I could listen to him for hours. His AlphaMale performance makes everybody else look apologetic and mousey -- except Samuel Jackson as the Uncle Tom who has all the brains in the mansion house. Without Jackson the final 45 minutes would be relentlessly tedious. I also enjoyed Don Johnson's spirited turn as a plantation owner who doesn't take long to catch on. The comedy scene where he leads a hooded mob is a complete failure. It isn't funny, and only calls attention to the ineptitude. The film recovers, but just barely. QT should have cut it.

At 2 hours and 45 minutes DJANGO UNCHAINED takes too long to get where its going. About an hour too long. There are several outrageous and effective scenes, like the "Mandingo" fight in front of the fireplace, but the story develops too slowly to generate tension. Instead of being held in suspense, we sit there waiting for the transitions to arrive. I get impatient with the long, long monologues and dialogues. QT is no David Mamet. I wish that Dr. Shultz's feeling of responsibility for Django had stayed in the subtext where it could invoke our emotions, instead of being explained in the dialogue where it shuts down an emotional response. QT has no subtlety and often overstates his case, and I don't mean just in the dialogue. For example the big gunfight at the end splashes too much red to be believable. But taken on its own terms I suppose the film is a fun ride.

It would be fun if other directors took this idea and ran with it in sequels, keeping Jamie Foxx as Django, hunting bounties on the trail west. The sequels could be better.


Richard

Andrew Monroe
01-10-2013, 08:37 AM
I also enjoyed Don Johnson's spirited turn as a plantation owner who doesn't take long to catch on. The comedy scene where he leads a hooded mob is a complete failure. It isn't funny, and only calls attention to the ineptitude. The film recovers, but just barely. QT should have cut it.



I had the same thought about the hooded mob scene, that bit where the one guy gets so offended because the hoods don't fit well and his wife made them was probably the worst part of the entire film. So out of place and totally tin-eared. Also agree on DiCaprio's performance, which really surprised me.

Richard--W
01-10-2013, 10:02 AM
Dollarbook Mel Brooks, to paraphrase Orson Welles.

That's probably the scene Hollywood liked best. Moments ago QT's talkfest script got nominated for an Academy Award. It's nominated in a few different categories. I don't think the film deserved one single nomination.

The Silly Swede
01-10-2013, 10:17 AM
QT is what I can gather in dire need of two things: A) a talented director to film his scripts so as to utilize visual storytelling, which will trim the films 30% in time, as not everything needs to be explained via dialogue, and B) a hard ass producer who says "no fucking way" to silly ideas like the one mentioned above and bullshit scenes like the entire first 30 minutes of death proof.

Horace Cordier
01-10-2013, 01:37 PM
Tarantino's direction is usually excellent - he needs an editor. The film is too long.

And I loved DJANGO UNCHAINED and consider DEATH PROOF total trash - it's not a good comparison. It also certainly has at least two Oscar worthy performances - Samuel Jackson and DiCaprio. Waltz is excellent but its a role this gifted actor could have done in his sleep. The fact that he got the nomination shows how clueless the academy is.

Richard--W
01-10-2013, 02:04 PM
He needs a script editor. The problems are in the writing before the camera cranks over. Somebody to tighten up the writing and transfer the dialogue into visual business before QT directs it. But then he doesn't understand visual metaphor like John Ford and all the great directors did. And do.

Horace Cordier
01-10-2013, 04:39 PM
He needs a script editor. The problems are in the writing before the camera cranks over. Somebody to tighten up the writing and transfer the dialogue into visual business before QT directs it. But then he doesn't understand visual metaphor like John Ford and all the great directors did. And do.

Not sure about that myself. Whatever problems I have with Tarantino have nothing to do with the way his films look.

It's two things - bloat in the writing which leads to unfocused films and a self-aware quality that just makes him look smug. And pacing.

Richard--W
01-10-2013, 05:13 PM
I was referring to how the story is told -- through declarative and expository dialogue instead of through visual business and metaphor -- not how the films look.

Horace Cordier
01-10-2013, 06:37 PM
I was referring to how the story is told -- through declarative and expository dialogue instead of through visual business and metaphor -- not how the films look.


I was referring to how the story is told -- through declarative and expository dialogue instead of through visual business and metaphor -- not how the films look.

I got that - but I wasn't clear.

That's one way of telling a story and its not one of Tarantino's strengths. Some directors excelled at it - like Corbucci's use of mud and filth in DJANGO to signify corruption or horses floundering in snow in THE GREAT SILENCE to show stasis and struggle against the environment. Ditto DePalma's use of mirrors in DRESSED TO KILL.

But a movie like Foley's GLENGARRY GLEN can be great with a very sparse "point and shoot" aesthetic by dint of its terrific script/source material.

But yeah, there's a reason "Show, don't tell" is an artistic maxim. And film is a visual medium.

Richard--W
01-11-2013, 12:24 PM
How come Franco Nero never got his own action figure?


http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/Richard--W/81dSWwjvOUL_AA1500__zps2efa08d2.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/NECA-Django-Unchained-Action-Figure/dp/B009I6S6Y4/ref=pd_bxgy_t_img_y

Horace Cordier
01-11-2013, 12:42 PM
How come Franco Nero never got his own action figure?


http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/Richard--W/81dSWwjvOUL_AA1500__zps2efa08d2.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/NECA-Django-Unchained-Action-Figure/dp/B009I6S6Y4/ref=pd_bxgy_t_img_y

Because its all about the youth market?

Too bad because a Franco Nero doll would make a lovely companion for my Talky Tina.

Richard--W
01-11-2013, 01:07 PM
Yeah, but this youth market says for ages 17 and Up on the box.

In other words, older kids. Grown men trapped in the peter pan syndrome?

They're selling action figures of Candie, William, and Herr Dr. Schultz as well.

After decades of having a small cult following, Django has become a star attraction again.
I found more budget Django collections on amazon. Anyone seen these:

from Boot Hill, whoever that is:
http://www.amazon.com/Some-Dollars-Django-Western-Set/dp/B00007IG1D/ref=pd_sim_mov_3


from Echo Bridge:
http://www.amazon.com/Some-Dollars-Django-Western-Set/dp/B00007IG1D/ref=pd_sim_mov_3


Now that QT and his cast have broken the ice on the N word, surely The Legend of Nig ger Charley and The Soul of Nig ger Charley are not far from being released on home video.

Andrew Monroe
01-11-2013, 01:24 PM
I think you meant to link to this one, Richard:
http://www.amazon.com/Django-Unleashed-Western-Movie-Collection/dp/B009H3LOFQ/ref=pd_sim_mov_3

That's the one from "Boot Hill" - probably a goof as that's one of the films included or else they are being sly and up front about the probable bootleg status of this release. Not much new on those two collections, aside from SOME DOLLARS FOR DJANGO, that's a good film. I wonder what that release looks like, I have the Minerva PAL dvd and it is very nice.

Paul L
01-11-2013, 07:20 PM
I see your DJANGO UNCHAINED action man, Richard, and raise you this:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l299/morethanatimelord/DSCF2941.jpg
http://thousandheads.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/legoman.jpg
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Dollar-Trilogy-Minimates-Few-More-Dollars-Man-with-No-Name-Eastwood-figure-loose-/00/s/MTAwMFgxMDAw/$(KGrHqV,!p8FC31!E)+3BQu(ePME0!~~60_35.JPG

Paul L
01-11-2013, 07:27 PM
And some more:

http://www.minimatedatabase.com/img/pack/profile/pack0461f_lg.jpg
http://www.minimatedatabase.com/img/pack/profile/pack0435f_lg.jpgp
http://www.minimatedatabase.com/img/pack/profile/pack0462f_lg.jpg

Richard--W
01-11-2013, 08:46 PM
Your pulled that action figure of Col. Douglas Mortimor out of the bottom of the deck. Who knew there was one.

You win. I fold. It wouldn't matter if the action figures of Herr Dr. Schultz, Candie, and William the Uncle Tom assumed strategic positions on the rooftops or if they lined up all in a row for a facedown, Col. Douglas Mortimar would outdraw them all. He'd mow them down. Everybody knows that.

I won't be going to see DJANGO UNCHAINED again. I'll wait for the price on the blu-ray to come down. It will hold up better on the small widescreen.

Randy G
01-12-2013, 03:54 AM
I was referring to how the story is told -- through declarative and expository dialogue instead of through visual business and metaphor -- not how the films look.

Well the dialogue of Lubitsch, Sturges and Rohmer's films are more important than the visuals and metaphor but of course Tarantino isn't in their league when it comes to dialogue and all three are visually elegant directors, particularly Lubitisch and Rohmer. But I agree that a Western in particular should be more visually compelling than this film.

Richard--W
01-12-2013, 02:19 PM
Good point about the conversational cinema of Lubitsch and Rohmer. I don't know Lubitsch as well as I should. But I know Rohmer, and have all his films on DVD. He always found the right environment with its own aesthetic to match the emotional state he was exploring. Each film looks different.

Are you referring to John Sturges? I never thought of John Sturges as a dialogue-heavy director. I would argue that the visuals in his films are very Very. The compositions of empty isolation in BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK being the most obvious example, at a time when everyone thought the new Cinemascope aspect ratio demanded huge crowds and stacked buildings. The townspeople are shown in groups, while Spencer Tracey is framed alone.

Tarantino is not one to explore interior states. Nor is he aware of the landscape and the sky in story-telling, which I would argue Rohmer could be at times. I'm thinking of that film set in the green park with the white tower buildings of the city in the background. He goes from the landscapes of the artificially created park to white city buildings with glass windows and back again.

Randy G
01-13-2013, 06:19 PM
I meant Preston Struges, his films screwball comedy classics are well made and brilliantly written but fairly straight forward visually compared to Lubitsch's TROUBLE IN PARADISE or SHOP AROUND THE CORNER. Rohmer is probably underrated for his filmmaking as opposed to his screenwriting in particular, your description of his use of environment and landscape is right on.

Your example of John Sturges BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK though does bring home how little Tarantino uses landscape in this Western. Although technically talented in many ways I can't recall any really memorable sequences of Tarantino's films in terms of the characters and landscape, my impression is that he doesn't use many master shots at all, which is fairly typical of modern American filmmaking these days. They rarely trust their actors or material enough to shoot their scenes at a distance. As in so much PT Anderson is the big exception there, particularly in THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Something that struck me in conversation about DJANGO and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS recently is that despite his debt and tributes to exploitation cinema Tarantino seems much more comfortable with excessive violence than the nudity and sex which played such an important role in exploitation.

His films are comparatively and conventionally chaste compared to his inspirations, again reflecting perhaps how conventional Tarantino is to modern Hollywood standards (much more comfortable with extreme violence than overt eroticism) than most seem to acknowledge.

The use of excessive vulgarity in his dialogue distracts from this prudishness. The only memorable sex scene in any of his films, aside from the cheap gay rape joke in PULP FICTION, is the standing quickie sex scene between Fonda and DeNiro in JACKIE BROWN. Again, contrast this with Anderson, someone who I think it a real maverick in American filmmaking these days.

Mark Tolch
01-16-2013, 09:03 AM
I liked DJANGO UNCHAINED a lot more than INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, although the best parts of IB were probably better than DU.

I found DJANGO more focused and consistent although it also suffers from less-than-great plotting, particularly at the end with feels dragged out and anti-climatic. The Mandigo element didn't seem particularly well thought-out or interesting, which weakens the middle stretch of the film as well.

I think the criticisms of Fox are misplaced, his performance is quite good, he certainly bring more grit to the role than Smith would have I think. I think the flaw with his character is more due to the script which is unbalanced with too much of the focus falling on Walz's character (which also fatally weakens the last section of the film). Although I like Walz's performance I'm not really sure if his character is necessary to the story which should really be more focused on Fox. DeCaprio is actually one of the strongest elements of the film, his performance here is one of his best.

Also, I'm no expert of the pre-Civil War South but I'm pretty sure the Southern slave-owning characters would have never allowed him to sit at the same dinning table as themselves. Jackson's character is a bit too comically broad, particularly in his 'Yes, Sir!' scene with DeCaprio at the dinner table (I understand the point of the scene, but it was just too obviously done). It was also a bit lame to see Tarantino resort to the action movie cliche/impossibility of gunshots sending characters flying several feet. His use of hip-hop on the soundtrack is purposefully an anachronism but unlike the use of electric instruments and psych-rock elements in a SW soundtrack I just don't think it works very well here (perhaps an instrumental hip-hop soundtrack like what RZA did for Ghost Dog would have worked better).

Odd thing here was how little Tarantino seemed to draw on the Western genre, both classic, revisionist 70s and SW. I don't mean merely his typical fetish for name-dropping filmic references, which he keeps admirably under control here compared to IE, Deathproof and Kill Bill 2. I mean in the lack of attention to framing, outside of some of the riding sequences at the beginning of the film there is little attention to landscape and the stately strong visual images that mark most of the great Westerns. He also doesn't bring much sense of tension to his gun fights. Overall I don't think that Tarantino has much feel for the genre but the film is still one of his best since Kill Bill 1.

Wow. I pretty much couldn't agree with you more! I just realized i was about to post spoilers, and i'll back away, but X10 on the Walz's character observations. The last 45 minutes of the film felt like a totally different (and not as good) film. I thought that the Battle Royale soundtrack during "the raid" was also lame, and the gunshots/arterial spray/flying bodies were just moronic.

I guess the only thing that I disagree with you on is that it was better than IB, which I did quite enjoy. And contrary to my original thought, DiCaprio WAS fantastic in this.

Mark Tolch
01-16-2013, 09:10 AM
There's nothing special about the photography or locations that weren't done better in the recent made-for-cable LOVE COMES SOFTLY series of films. All the same locations are used. QT does invoke a 1960s nostalgia, right down to determinedly inaccurate costuming. I've never seen a Civil War-era film that looked and felt less like the period. The nostalgia takes me out of the period and makes me aware than I'm watching an artifice; unlike HEAVEN'S GATE (1980) and GETTYSBURG (1993), for example, in which the utilitarian design and costuming makes me believe in the period. The CGI-generated snow at the Melody Ranch town-set was a nice touch, however.

This is Leonardo DiCaprio's film. I would describe his character and appearance as a silver-tongued devil. Not only does he get the physicality of the southern aristocrat right down to the minutest gesture, but his period mannerisms are fun to watch. Wonder of wonders, he makes QT's verbose dialogue flow trippingly off the tongue. No one has ever delivered QT's dialogue with more aplomb than DiCaprio. I could listen to him for hours. His AlphaMale performance makes everybody else look apologetic and mousey -- except Samuel Jackson as the Uncle Tom who has all the brains in the mansion house. Without Jackson the final 45 minutes would be relentlessly tedious. I also enjoyed Don Johnson's spirited turn as a plantation owner who doesn't take long to catch on. The comedy scene where he leads a hooded mob is a complete failure. It isn't funny, and only calls attention to the ineptitude. The film recovers, but just barely. QT should have cut it.
Richard

Nicely put, Richard. The hooded mob scene was ridiculous....did you mention Mel Brooks earlier? That's exactly what it felt like to me. I felt that scene, and the "story of Broomhilda" sequence could've been dropped altogether. If the film had been less than 2 hours, i wouldn't have minded so much, but at almost 3 hours, it felt like there was FAR too much filler. There are moments of greatness, they're just spread too far apart and seem to be placed and then forgotten about.

Wllm Clys
01-20-2013, 03:48 AM
Has anyone read this?

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/12/the-amorality-of-django-unchained/266531/#

Mark Tolch
01-21-2013, 08:59 AM
I guess if you wanted to read a lot into it, you could put that spin on it. I don't really regard Tarantino as the kind of guy who makes thought-provoking films.

Wllm Clys
01-25-2013, 03:05 PM
I finally saw the film.

Pros:
- Some of the images very very striking: the blood splashes, the blood on the cotton, the bisons and deer in the snow, ...
- Not a second of boredom in two and a half hours
- Excellent use of music

Cons:
- Comedy that didn't always work, especially the last two minutes of the film
- It still annoys me a bit that he gets away with the fact that 90% of his audience thinks all of the crazy finds / original ideas in this film are his :)

All in all, a very nice cinema experience. 8,5/10

Ian Jane
02-11-2013, 11:09 AM
5631

Dom D
02-24-2013, 05:58 PM
This movie is long. And because it has fuck all structure it feels even longer than it actually is. Which, as I've pointed out, is very long indeed. At one point I needed to make a run to the bathroom. Turned it was way down the end the end of the longest corridor on earth up two sets of esclators and then back. Sat back down in my seat about 5 minutes later didn't feel like I'd missed a thing. In fact I wouldn't have been surprised if we were still in the same scene.

What was Tarantino thinking with that extra act on the end with Django being dragged away to the mines? Just finish it with the big shootout. It had all been leading to that, it was perfectly set up for a bloodbath of Peckinpahrian proportions and then tarantino just dicks around for what feels like another hour and forty minutes. This is bad movie making. And what's with all the repeated scenes? Like Waltz explaining about how he's an officer of the court after he shoots some bad guys. Once is enough.

But there's some damned good stuff in here. DiCaprio is brilliant. Jackson is brilliant. In fact the whole Candyland section is great. It's just we spend a lot of time elsewhere. Django takes about an hour ten before he shows any signs of actually having a character. Before that he's just kind of there. Good character when he gets one but by god it takes a long time. Waltz is... well if you liked Waltz in Inglorious Baterds you'll like him here. I find it the performance too affected but it can't be easy spewing out the long winded gibberish Tarantino gives him so tip of the hat there.

But also just what the fuck is Tarantino doing here? Why is it called Django? Why does it have the vintage fonts? Why is the first section shot with zoom lenses going crazy like he Jesus Franco? He's making a tough slavery western. All that homagerey is just distracting.

And those shots of gunslingers riding around in the snow... Just gets me thinking about The Great Silence. Now I like thinking about the Great Silence but as a filmmaker you don't want me doing that unless you've made a much better film than this.

Richard--W
02-24-2013, 07:17 PM
All that you say is dead to rights.

That business of Django being dragged away to the mines apes a scene from a 1968 Charlton Heston movie. It's not the only scene that should have been cut. The KKK comedy scene should have been cut, too. With these two scenes cut DJANGO UNCHAINED would be a significantly smoother tale but not necessarily a better film.

Personally, I prefer THE LEGEND OF NIG GER CHARLEY, THE SOUL OF NIG GER CHARLEY, MANDINGO and DRUM.

The real question is why QT decided to call his amalgamation of the above films after the spaghetti western character to begin with since there's no Django stuff in it.

The whole enterprise feels more disingenuous than a James Bond film.

Mark Tolch
02-25-2013, 09:23 AM
What you guys said...it's got some good parts, but it needed a good chopping. In addition to the KKK comedy scene and the mine bit, I would have also scrapped the Broom Hilda origins scene. I also didn't like Samuel L. Jackson at all, or the overdone blood.

All in all, it was entertaining, but I have no need to revisit it.

Richard--W
02-25-2013, 10:03 AM
Last night DJANGO UNCHAINED won Academy Awards for original screenplay and supporting actor (Christoph Walz).

It deserves neither, not by any standard.

How can a screenplay cobbled together from the scripts to other films by an original?

The Silly Swede
06-02-2013, 06:55 PM
I finally saw this, as it is now available on disc in my backwards part of the world.

I agree with the previous posters here. It is just not a very good film. It is slow and overlong, filled with cliches and to much dialogue. I fucking hated the comic relief bit, despite having Don Johnson in it, whom I love. I couldnt stand the use of music. Get a fucking score by a composer who writes it FOR YOUR FILM. I didn't feel Django was a very well crafted character. From an illiterade slave to a suave asskicker in the blink of an Eye. This movie needed a montage.

what I did like though was the level of blood, Sam Jackson being fucking evil without ever flinching and DiCaprio, who shows he is the best actor of his generation.
In fact, I would even say that the film fails in its premise because of the DiCaprio character being the... shall we say moral winner. Sure, he might be an evil slaveowner, BUT he catches Django and the German in their scheme to trick him, gets angry, but still gives them what they want for the price they lured him with in the first place. In my world, that makes him an honorable man, despite his business of being a slave trader.
So for me, he is not the films badguy.

Also, as previous posters pointed out, wtf is up with ending the main shootout for a 10 minute break of bullshit nothing and then having a new one? Fuck that shit.

The Silly Swede
06-02-2013, 07:56 PM
Also, was it just me or was this film a Little to similar, character wise, to the horrible Wild Wild West with Will Smith? I mean, Django even has the same sunglasses in this film.

Paul L
06-11-2013, 05:03 PM
I watched this today and, um, enjoyed some parts of if. I thought DiCaprio was excellent, and I loved the interplay between him and Jackson - that scene in the library was wonderful, when the full import of the relationship between the two comes to the surface and Jackson's character reveals the face behind the mask of Stephen.

On the other hand, most of the staging in the film felt very rushed and ill-considered and, sadly, I didn't think much to the photography at all - most of the film seemed visually flat and compressed, as if shot with short telephoto lenses. Many scenes seemed to cry out for wide angle lenses (eg, the saloon sequence near the beginning of the film), and the first time I noticed a wide angle lens being used was in the montage in which the housemaids dressed the dining table in the Candyland 'Big House'. (I may be slightly mistaken in this, as I wasn't paying a massive amount of attention.) The violence worked nicely too, although in that final shootout Django seems to have a gun that fires bullets that can change direction midflight. (Those who've seen it will know what I mean.)

Structurally, it's a mess. I mean, I like the picaresque plotting of many Italian Westerns, but this felt disjointed and unfocused. It needed a much more critical eye in the editing room, I think.

There's enough here for me to want to revisit the film at some point in the future, but it's not what it could - or should - have been.

I hope Tarantino goes ahead with his adaptation of FORTY LASHES LESS ONE at some point: working with Leonard's material seems to give his work a little more substance, weight and focus, and I'd like to see him transplant the relative strengths of JACKIE BROWN into a Western setting.

The Silly Swede
06-12-2013, 11:23 AM
It feels great that I was not alone in my critique of this film. Ordinary people all seem to worship this and get almost offended when I tell them I think it is a piece of shit.

Horace Cordier
06-12-2013, 12:16 PM
He didn't exactly call it a piece of shit.

He had some legitimate issues with it. Big difference.

I like this a lot but understand much of the criticism. Still, with the garbage Hollywood regularly vomits out these days this is a friggin' masterpiece.

The Silly Swede
06-12-2013, 03:37 PM
Stop believing the hype Horamce. It IS a piece of shit, Paul is just to much of a British gentleman to say it like that :biggrin:

Mark Tolch
06-12-2013, 03:45 PM
I wouldn't say it's a piece of shit....but I wouldn't say I enjoyed it, either. It was a mess.

Andrew Monroe
06-12-2013, 04:12 PM
6 months after seeing the film the thing that really sticks in my craw is the ending - he didn't know when to quit. The whole business with Tarantino and the other two was completely unnecessary and self-indulgent. There were some things I liked but I doubt I'll ever watch it again (as per usual with most of his films).

paul h.
06-12-2013, 04:21 PM
The more I think about it, uneven is what it is. There are dark moments and then a lot of comedy, and then comedy mixed in with the graphic violence. And then that goofy shit with the KKK and the horse dancing crap at the end, I don't know. It's like A.D.D. and uncertainty of tone. A lot of self conscious winking and chuckling up its own sleeve. I wasn't expecting a totally serious film from Tarantino, but wouldn't it be surprising and refreshing if he could deliver one. Better yet, an ORIGINAL film from him would be the best challenge he could give himself.

I dare you Q, and I'll be your line producer. :)

As I was writing this I realized that some directors can perfectly balance comedy and dark, gritty violence: the Coen brothers have done it again and again, without the "self awareness" factor.

paul h.
06-12-2013, 04:22 PM
Still, I was entertained, but it was uneven, and needed to cut down to size for more impact.

Paul L
06-12-2013, 04:46 PM
6 months after seeing the film the thing that really sticks in my craw is the ending - he didn't know when to quit. The whole business with Tarantino and the other two was completely unnecessary and self-indulgent.
I felt the same whilst watching the film, Andrew, but in retrospect (and having had a day or so to think about it) I think that sequence serves a fairly important function: it shows that Django has acquired the gift of the gab from his mentor Schulz: not only does he walk the walk, but he's also begun to talk the talk.

Still, I feel there's a pretty good 120 minute movie buried in this somewhere. One of the things Tarantino doesn't seem to have learnt from filmmakers such as Corbucci is their major asset: an economy of narrative and an efficiency of style. There are moments of (operatic) excess within the genre of Italian Westerns, but they're usually contained within a tight, punchy narrative. (Leone's the exception, arguably.)

paul h.
06-12-2013, 06:42 PM
...their major asset: an economy of narrative and an efficiency of style.

Absolutely! This is something that many modern directors lack, and part of the reason so many films are over 2 hours, when it is simply not necessary.

Mark Tolch
06-12-2013, 08:14 PM
That movie could be great with the right editor.

Richard--W
06-12-2013, 09:02 PM
It would have needed a script editor first to tighten up the loose exposition on the page. A film editor can't tighten up a story told through dialogue unless he simply cuts it. Since the story is told mostly through dialog, instead of through action or behavior or visual metaphor, there's no way to tighten it without losing the story. The best that could be done would be to cut the KKK comedy interlude and the prison wagon bit near the end.

The costuming and firearms are inaccurate to the period, the modern-day slang and gestures are inaccurate to the period, the photography is bland, the direction is flat and only on one note. Nothing can save the film from those flaws.

The Silly Swede
06-13-2013, 06:13 AM
I agree with Richard. This films major flaw is that everything is explained via dialogue, which makes its tempo drop to unbearable pace.

Dom D
06-13-2013, 06:22 AM
I reckon you can cut half an hour at least out of this film and only only the films biggest fans would be any the wiser. There's so much repetition within the dialogue that I reckon you can cut a shitload of it without losing anything. Actually going in and reediting movies for practice is something I've been doing a bit recently and this is calling out for it. Hard to do much about the major structural problems though. That weird gutshot ending is going to damage any movie.

Robin Bougie
06-13-2013, 07:57 AM
The only thing I would change is Tarantino being in it (it's cringeworthy, every time he's on screen) and I think I'd also probably would cut about 5 min from the trip to Candyland sequence. I can also take or leave the "hoods don't fit" mob dialog scene. Usually I kind of like it, but if I'm in the wrong mood I find that part grating.

Aside from that, it's nearly a perfect movie come to think of it. It's right up there with QT's best films: Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, and Inglorious Basterds. It also just gets better each time I watch it. 2nd best movie of 2012 in my opinion.

Mark Tolch
06-13-2013, 08:51 AM
It would have needed a script editor first to tighten up the loose exposition on the page. A film editor can't tighten up a story told through dialogue unless he simply cuts it. Since the story is told mostly through dialog, instead of through action or behavior or visual metaphor, there's no way to tighten it without losing the story. The best that could be done would be to cut the KKK comedy interlude and the prison wagon bit near the end.

The costuming and firearms are inaccurate to the period, the modern-day slang and gestures are inaccurate to the period, the photography is bland, the direction is flat and only on one note. Nothing can save the film from those flaws.

Without noting the period inaccuracies...which I'm in agreement with you on...I think that chopping the KKK scene, the ride to Candyland, about half of Samuel Jackson's performance, the ending, the origins of Broom Hilde camping speech, and a few other bits would make this film pretty decent. I don't have a problem with a lot of the dialogue outside of those scenes.

Andrew Monroe
06-13-2013, 10:09 AM
I felt the same whilst watching the film, Andrew, but in retrospect (and having had a day or so to think about it) I think that sequence serves a fairly important function: it shows that Django has acquired the gift of the gab from his mentor Schulz: not only does he walk the walk, but he's also begun to talk the talk.



Never thought of it that way, Paul. You make a good point, I just would have liked to have seen that accomplished in a more compact fashion and without Tarantino's cameo and ridiculous Australian accent.

Horace Cordier
06-13-2013, 12:32 PM
Some folks here need to sit through DEATH PROOF, that fuckin' FOUR ROOMS segment or either KILL vastly overrated BILL again. 😄

I sat through DU in the theatre and wasn't bored at all. And while film is a visual medium not every movie needs to have a Harold Pinter script.

This and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS are the only films by Tarantino I can say I love - and I like RESERVOIR DOGS.

paul h.
06-13-2013, 01:28 PM
I hear ya. Even though he borrows from everyone, he's got his own thing. I just watched Death Proof again the other day. I like it more each time I view it. And I'm with you on appreciating IB & DU, I just feel that there is room for improvement to make them really great. But I'm still impressed that he is getting them made "the way that he wants".

Scott
06-13-2013, 02:08 PM
Some folks here need to sit through DEATH PROOF, that fuckin' FOUR ROOMS segment or either KILL vastly overrated BILL again. 😄

I sat through DU in the theatre and wasn't bored at all. And while film is a visual medium not every movie needs to have a Harold Pinter script.

This and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS are the only films by Tarantino I can say I love - and I like RESERVOIR DOGS.

Tarantino lost me with KILL BILLs, after JACKIE BROWN I thought he could do no wrong! Something about the KILL BILLs feels so phoney, more like parody Tarantino films. I still like RESEVOIR DOGS and parts of PULP FICTION, more than the sum. If you asked me what his strengths were after seeing RESEVOIR DOGS I would have said the writing, the casting and the music. I was only 14 when I saw RESEVOIR DOGS and at the time I was unfamiliar with most of the actors and most of the music, I was also unfamiliar with CITY ON FIRE. He's still good with the casting, but I'm less sure of his skills as a writer. And while some of his music choices still come off as inspired, the trick of using old music is wearing thin.

Now I'm on the other side of the fence. I watched a lot of the films that inspired him. I can see the bigger picture and where he's drawing from and it hurts my appreciation of his work. I'd rather watch the original films instead of his remix. His voice doesn't feel fresh to me any more.

But I watched JACKIE BROWN a couple weeks ago and it still works. For me it's a perfect movie. Every line, every nuance, every shot. Just perfect. I cry at the end every time and I love it. Since the time it came out I've read the book RUM PUNCH and a few other by Elmore Leonard. I feel like Tarantino elevated the book. The book is good but what Tarantino did was create something sublime. The lethargic pace works in it's favor. It's long and slow but it isn't bloated, you savor it. It's not full of idocy and mugging like some of his other movies.

I don't know if he has it in him to do something like that again.

I did like DJANGO but it's no JACKIE BROWN.

Ian Jane
06-13-2013, 02:15 PM
I cry at the end every time and I love it.

I'm man enough to admit that I tear up at the ending too.

Just got DU yesterday. Will hopefully have something more substantial to add in a few days, but yeah, Jackie makes me cry and I love it too. I even get a little choked up just hearing Across 110th Street outside of the context of the movie. None of his other movies have affected me that way.

Paul L
06-13-2013, 02:25 PM
Never thought of it that way, Paul. You make a good point, I just would have liked to have seen that accomplished in a more compact fashion and without Tarantino's cameo and ridiculous Australian accent.
I agree completely with this, Andrew. On the other hand, I liked Michael Parks' turn in that sequence - but like you said, the point could have been made in a better fashion.

Tarantino lost me with KILL BILLs, after JACKIE BROWN I thought he could do no wrong! Something about the KILL BILLs feels so phoney, more like parody Tarantino films [....] He's still good with the casting, but I'm less sure of his skills as a writer. And while some of his music choices still come off as inspired, the trick of using old music is wearing thin [....]

But I watched JACKIE BROWN a couple weeks ago and it still works. For me it's a perfect movie. Every line, every nuance, every shot. Just perfect. I cry at the end every time and I love it. Since the time it came out I've read the book RUM PUNCH and a few other by Elmore Leonard. I feel like Tarantino elevated the book. The book is good but what Tarantino did was create something sublime. The lethargic pace works in it's favor. It's long and slow but it isn't bloated, you savor it. It's not full of idocy and mugging like some of his other movies.

I don't know if he has it in him to do something like that again.
I agree with virtually every word of that, Scott. I thought, and still think, JACKIE BROWN is an astonishingly good film. There's a pathos there - about ageing, loss, etc - that I think is sourced from Leonard. After that, KILL BILL was a *huge* disappointment. With JACKIE BROWN, I thought he was going somewhere interesting; with KILL BILL he went in the opposite direction. Y'know, I've never even bothered to watch the second KILL BILL all the way through. Maybe I should do that some day.

Andrew Monroe
06-13-2013, 02:41 PM
I saw both KILL BILLs in the theater, as well as INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and DJANGO UNCHAINED. I can find more to admire in the latter two but have no desire to ever revisit them. The thought of watching any more BILL on the other hand, sends a cold chill down my spine. Actively dislike those two BILLs.

I'm with several of you in that JACKIE BROWN is his best film imo, certainly the only one I can (and do) rewatch. Like Paul mentioned, I hope he'll do Forty Lashes Less One. Adapting another writer's work (and Leonard in particular) seems to bring out some maturity that's otherwise not there.

Mark Tolch
06-13-2013, 02:54 PM
I enjoy the two KILL BILLs, but for their cartoonish aspect. Aside from that, what Scott said.

Richard--W
06-13-2013, 03:38 PM
Tarantino lost me with KILL BILLs, after JACKIE BROWN I thought he could do no wrong! Something about the KILL BILLs feels so phoney, more like parody Tarantino films. ... If you asked me what his strengths were after seeing RESEVOIR DOGS I would have said the writing, the casting and the music. I was only 14 when I saw RESEVOIR DOGS and at the time I was unfamiliar with most of the actors and most of the music, I was also unfamiliar with CITY ON FIRE. He's still good with the casting, but I'm less sure of his skills as a writer. And while some of his music choices still come off as inspired, the trick of using old music is wearing thin.

Now I'm on the other side of the fence. I watched a lot of the films that inspired him. I can see the bigger picture and where he's drawing from and it hurts my appreciation of his work. I'd rather watch the original films instead of his remix. His voice doesn't feel fresh to me any more.

But I watched JACKIE BROWN a couple weeks ago and it still works. For me it's a perfect movie. Every line, every nuance, every shot. Just perfect. I cry at the end every time and I love it. Since the time it came out I've read the book RUM PUNCH and a few other by Elmore Leonard. I feel like Tarantino elevated the book. The book is good but what Tarantino did was create something sublime. The lethargic pace works in it's favor. It's long and slow but it isn't bloated, you savor it. It's not full of idiocy and mugging like some of his other movies.

Well said, Scott. In my case I saw many of the films that inspired QT when they were new before I saw how QT reworked them. Knowing what his sources are diminishes his version. JACKIE BROWN would not have achieved the pathos it does without that ending; that ending lends pathos to everything that came before.



...I agree with virtually every word of that, Scott. I thought, and still think, JACKIE BROWN is an astonishingly good film. There's a pathos there - about ageing, loss, etc - that I think is sourced from Leonard. After that, KILL BILL was a *huge* disappointment. With JACKIE BROWN, I thought he was going somewhere interesting; with KILL BILL he went in the opposite direction. Y'know, I've never even bothered to watch the second KILL BILL all the way through. Maybe I should do that some day.


You're not missing anything. A few more shots of Uma's feet, but you've already seen plenty of those. KILL BILL 2 is as empty as the first.



I saw both KILL BILLs in the theater, as well as INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and DJANGO UNCHAINED. I can find more to admire in the latter two but have no desire to ever revisit them. The thought of watching any more BILL on the other hand, sends a cold chill down my spine. Actively dislike those two BILLs.

I'm with several of you in that JACKIE BROWN is his best film imo, certainly the only one I can (and do) rewatch. Like Paul mentioned, I hope he'll do Forty Lashes Less One. Adapting another writer's work (and Leonard in particular) seems to bring out some maturity that's otherwise not there.

Maturity. Yeah.

I'm done with QT. If he does FORTY LASHES LESS ONE, I'll give him another try, not because it's his film, but because I always go see the latest western. However I no longer have confidence in QT to adapt that work properly. He managed it on JACKIE BROWN but he headed in the opposite direction after that.

Horace Cordier
06-13-2013, 04:19 PM
SOUTHERN COMFORT could be called a DELIVERANCE homage. Doesn't stop it from being a fine film.

And almost the entire Italian genre film industry in the 80's was a bunch of homages - hell - ripoffs. Doesn't stop me from enjoying those films.

So I have no problem with Tarantino's homages.

While DU and IB may be bloated and in need of tighter editing and more overall self-control I find them creative and entertaining.

I find both KILL BILLS insufferable self-congratulatory crap. And DEATH PROOF is one of the most masturbatory scripts ever filmed.

I think Tarantino is now in the backlash to the rehabilitation of his reputation phase. The undeserved screenwriting Oscar and his recent arrogant statements have let the film geek Gods of War loose.

The Silly Swede
06-13-2013, 06:51 PM
I say Django Unchained IS Wild Wild West for the hipster generation. Why wont anyone listen to me? I know in my heart I am correct in this!

Horace Cordier
06-13-2013, 09:51 PM
I say Django Unchained IS Wild Wild West for the hipster generation. Why wont anyone listen to me? I know in my heart I am correct in this!

Groan.

WILD WILD WEST isn't even a debate.

It's a universally recognized piece of complete shit that doesn't even have chuckle value like BATTLEFIELD EARTH. It has as much in common with DJANGO UNCHAINED as Hannah Montana.

The Silly Swede
06-14-2013, 08:52 AM
It has as much in common with DJANGO UNCHAINED as Hannah Montana.

Except that Django wears the same shades as Will Smith in Wild Wild West! Granted, DU is a better film thanks to good acting from DiCaprio and Sam Jackson, but as a whole it is just as targeted at the same kind of people as WWW was, but for a new generation.

Mark Tolch
06-14-2013, 09:14 AM
And Horamce doesn't creep the Wild Wild West fan forums.

Ian Jane
06-16-2013, 09:59 AM
Watched it last night and yeah, that Clan scene is too long as is the trip to Candyland. The use of modern hip hop in a few spots takes you out of the movie and seems unnecessary, there are some serious editing issues throughout the movie. This could have been two hours and been better for it. Overall though, I liked it, mainly because the performances were great. I actually got upset when what happened to Waltz's character happened. That's always the sign of good work. Foxx was a cool lead, he definitely pulled it off and Jackson was great. Some fun cameos too (Tom Wopat?), though Jonah Hill should go away. Was also impressed with the lengthy crazy shoot out towards the end. I could see myself watching this again at some point. I wasn't looking for realism, just entertainment, and I got that.

Scott
06-16-2013, 03:17 PM
The scene at the end where he leaves and comes back, reminds me of the end of PULP FICTION at the diner. When they say goodbye to Harvey Keitel at the junkyard that should have been it. Or really end it after Bruce Willis and his girl ride off on their motor cycle. I'm not really in love with anything that comes after that. But when they get to the diner the movie starts to feel like work. All the actors are great but I just want it to end.

Scott
06-16-2013, 03:32 PM
I could see myself watching this again at some point. I wasn't looking for realism, just entertainment, and I got that.

Because of the subject matter it feels the most outright exploitationy of his movies. It makes you laugh and cheer and wince at all the nasty subject matter. Like the best exploitation movies do. While it's not on the same level as AFRICA ADDIO, I think it's closer to that movie in genre than the western, or especially the spaghetti western. If that makes sense.

Ian Jane
06-16-2013, 05:34 PM
Because of the subject matter it feels the most outright exploitationy of his movies. It makes you laugh and cheer and wince at all the nasty subject matter. Like the best exploitation movies do. While it's not on the same level as AFRICA ADDIO, I think it's closer to that movie in genre than the western, or especially the spaghetti western. If that makes sense.

I'd say just based on the subject matter it's closer to Goodbye Uncle Tom than Africa Addio, but I see what you're saying. And yeah, there were definitely a few times where I winced. The subject matter almost requires that those moments be in the movie.

Anyone else notice Zoe Bell in the red bandana? A nod to Corbucci's movie maybe? I saw bits and pieces where she said that originally her character had a larger part and that the bandana was meant to hide the fact that part of her face was missing but I couldn't help but think of the bad guys in the real Django when I saw that outfit.

Paul L
06-16-2013, 05:46 PM
Anyone else notice Zoe Bell in the red bandana? A nod to Corbucci's movie maybe? I saw bits and pieces where she said that originally her character had a larger part and that the bandana was meant to hide the fact that part of her face was missing but I couldn't help but think of the bad guys in the real Django when I saw that outfit.
Yep, the whole business with the 'trackers' felt throwaway, as if it was chopped down in the editing room to the point where it didn't really make sense in the completed film and maybe should have been left out of the picture entirely - or should have been more carefully considered before the film went into production. Robert Carradine and Tom Savini are also amongst the group of trackers, aren't they?

Scott
06-16-2013, 06:17 PM
I'd say just based on the subject matter it's closer to Goodbye Uncle Tom than Africa Addio, but I see what you're saying. And yeah, there were definitely a few times where I winced. The subject matter almost requires that those moments be in the movie.

Haha, whoops, yeah I meant GOODBYE UNCLE TOM.

Ian Jane
11-10-2014, 09:57 AM
I watched this for a second time over the weekend, my dad was visiting and he'd never seen it and I think I actually enjoyed it more the 2nd time. Maybe it was because I knew what to expect and so my expectations were a bit different, possibly a bit lower, haha, but it didn't seem quite as long or self indulgent this time around for whatever reason. I also think I appreciated the performances from pretty much everyone more this time as well, maybe because I wasn't as distracted by the visuals as I was on first viewing (there really is some excellent camera work in this movie).

That last shoot out in Candie Land though, it sure does pack a punch...

Mark Tolch
11-10-2014, 11:54 AM
I also recently watched this one again. I did enjoy it slightly more than I did the first time, but damn, it is still WAY too long. That whole pillowcase scene needs to be chopped, the scene where King is explaining the legend of Brunhilda needs to go, and the ending with Tarantino and his buddies needs to be chopped. They could easily knock 45 minutes out of that movie.

Ian Jane
11-10-2014, 12:24 PM
I also recently watched this one again. I did enjoy it slightly more than I did the first time, but damn, it is still WAY too long. That whole pillowcase scene needs to be chopped, the scene where King is explaining the legend of Brunhilda needs to go, and the ending with Tarantino and his buddies needs to be chopped. They could easily knock 45 minutes out of that movie.

Yeah, the Aussie miner bit at the end feels like it could have been done without but it didn't bug me. The KKK/pillow cast part is just there to kill off Don Johnson's character but I agree, it's not needed. At all. It adds some unnecessary comic relief but that's it. I do think that the explanation of the Siegfried/Brunhilda legend works though. I actually really like the way that the movie ties that story into the story with Foxx and Washington's characters. But I'm sap and like goofy romance stuff sometimes. If I think about it objectively it probably could have been chopped down. But again, I like it in the movie as is.

Mark Tolch
11-10-2014, 12:27 PM
Fair enough. I thought that the shootout at Candieland should've just been a shootout...not a shootout, Jamie Foxx gets hauled away, then comes back, shootout. As for the Klan scene, well, comedy relief only works when it's funny. :D

Martin Brooks
11-10-2014, 01:31 PM
There were only two things I didn't like about the film. The hip-hip/rap songs were so wrong to include. Really bad idea like Ian said - took you right out of the picture. The other was when a woman was shot (at the final shoot out) and flew out of sight as though pulled by a rope. That should have been re-thought.