I suspect we might need a thread for this as it seems to be getting great reviews so far: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/django_unchained_2012/ And who doesn't like the concept of a big-budget pulpy, western, revenge film? Out in the US on Christmas Day.
I'm certainly gonna see this. Though I can't decide if I'm more excited for The Hobbit or Django Unchained. Good thing I don't have to chose.
This is the ideal double feature with Les Miserables! Anyway, this looks neat, but I was so unimpressed with Inglourious Basterds (yes, I know, I'm mostly alone here) that I'm hesitant. True statement overheard at the theater recently: "Django Unchained? That movie's gonna be crazy. The RZA directed it!"
Uh. Same movie. They just have it with two different names. It's obviously the same movie because they both have black guys in them. just in case i am unclear bengunn the only reason i shared that true statement was cos it was someone sayin somethin hella dumb
I'm a huge fan of the original Django and of that director, Sergio Corbucci. I think The Great Silence is one of the best movies I've seen, definitely one of the top three westerns. And just from the trailer, I can see a lot of hinge homage to these fantastic spaghetti westerns.
You are not alone. Since we're going out on the ledge of Tarantino heresy here, I'm that guy who doesn't think Reservoir Dogs is awesome. Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are by far my faves.
See, I want to be like "Dammit Shift6! Reservoir Dogs is awesome!" But at the same time, it's not as awesome as the other two movies you listed, so I'm going to have to, regrettably, agree with you. Kill Bill will always be my favorite.
I went to try and see this earlier today because hey, early Christmas day matinee movie, who's going to be there? Turns out everybody. It must have sold out just before we got there because the electronic board hadn't been updated yet, and when the guy ahead of us was told by the ticket seller that it had sold out and the next available ticket was for this afternoon the entire line of people turned around and left. The primetime showing was already sold out too. That's the first time I've ever seen a sold-out matinee show there.
So yeah, that movie was awesome. I had high expectations and it was better than I expected and hit all the right notes. Good times.
We had a similar problem with getting into the movie but managed to buy tickets via cell phone for a showing closer to home and later. As it happens, this is one of a handful of theaters in Atlanta that sell booze, and that's a good thing because you might find you want a drink on hand. I liked it a lot. I liked Inglorious Basterds a good bit, but it felt like a warm-up for this. The acting was a lot more consistent, and you never felt like it was an ensemble so much as a movie that somehow included a number of protagonists >1. I don't know how I feel about the content. Incidentally, this is probably Di Caprio's best role in years and I have no idea what to say about Samuel Jackson except "wow".
It's like Blood Simple. If you saw it in its time it meant something was changing, but it's hard to put yourself in that mindset unless you are focused entirely on technique. Also, if you're in here without seeing the movie
This was a lot of fun. A bit different than what I expected, in a good way. Jamie Foxx was great, as DiCapprio was. So many great laugh-out-loud moments.
It is so refreshing to see such an original movie. This was top notch and if I might add a bit uncomfortable watching several scenes. It doesn't hold back. The opening scenes leading up to "Now you can go get the sheriff" took me back to the old time westerns. You can tell that Tarantino really loves his westerns, the panoramic vistas were great. As the movie switched over to the South and slavery took center stage, the movie was much more dark - following the parable set up in the first part of the movie.
That was an amazing scene - I was actually wondering "Damn, did he actually just cut his hand open? If not, that is a spectacularly good job from the props department, given the gushing fountains of Kool-Aid everyone else seems to have pressurized inside them."
I don't think the parable was that literal as in any one of them was the dragon. But if I had to vote it would be Stephen.
Spike Lee is reportedly pissed about this movie. Well, maybe pissed is too strong a word, but making a scene at least. Not that he ever does anything but. I agree that the film mythologized slavery, but I never once felt it was being disrespectful, mainly because it was obvious throughout that Tarantino was striving for operatic art, spaghetti-western style more than realistic history. Is that in and of itself disrespectful? Are some topics verboten? I dunno. It never felt exploitative. I felt that Tarantino balanced on that line very well. I loved it. The story hung together much better than Inglorious Basterds did, in my opinion (though I loved that film too). The performances were terrific. The scene Tman mentioned, where Django listens to Schultz tell the Brunhilde myth, is some of the best acting I've ever seen from Jamie Foxx. So few words, and yet so many emotions crossing his face. And as Lizard_King said, it's Leo's best performance since The Departed. Tarantino's new editor did well also, obviously with just as much difficulty trimming things down. I suppose the KKK scene could have been cut without losing much, but it was hilarious (Jonah Hill excepted) so I'm okay with it being there. I think at this point, if an editor were to produce a two hour Tarantino movie, we'd all feel like something was wrong. If I had to make some sort of criticism it would be that the film feels maybe too similar to some of T's other work. But am I going to complain about a film that's so different and better than most of the other crap out there just because it's similar to his other work? No, no I'm not.
The only thing I find weird about the film (and I haven't seen it yet,) is the inclusion of the KKK at all. (The KKK didn't exist until after the Civil War.)
It's useful to consider sinnick's point about mythology, here, as the sort of KKK precursor included here seems squarely aimed at sucking the wind out of the informal ancestors of the organization in Tarantino's special way.
It's plausible to me that the KKK was borne out of the need for more professionally crafted head-bags.
Exactly, Spike Lee complains about anything that isn't a Spike Lee Joint or the New York Knicks. Also Django is excellent. The acting alone is worth the price of a ticket.
I'm pretty sure it was her. Her name was in the credits, and there was no reason for her to be there other than as a member of the QT Cameo Gang. When Tarantino himself showed up, it almost ruined the movie for me. I really wish he'd stop casting himself. By the way, if you haven't seen Double Dare, the documentary about Zoe Bell, it's worth watching.
The one you propose was in an earlier scene. I believe it's during the sequence where Django rides a horse for the first time, and they go into a town to a saloon. I remember seeing her peering out a window at them.
I have to disagree, almost everything Tarantino touches is by nature exploitative. His movie making is self-indulgent, overwrought, and self-congratulating. Tarantino makes movies to please one person: Tarantino. For better or for worse, this is why people like him. This isn't a Coen's film, where the use of language is judiciously researched, and makes a play at accuracy, Tarantino writes his dialogue straight off the top of his overly stoned dome - every n-word uttered was his intention - he truly enjoys the vile. Again, this is why we like him, but it also means this movie is completely without sensitivity and Spike Lee has every right to shit all over it. As to my own opinions on the movie: I really wish it didn't have two separate climaxes. QT has a really bad habit of undercutting his own momentum and he had some great momentum at the cap of the Candie-land shoot out. Luckily, the source material he's drawing from was WAY less balanced than the movie he made, so he gets a pass - but I would have liked to see this movie shorter and tighter. I'd also like to see Tarantino write a few less characters with the gift of gab. Quentin: you do silent tension very well, almost as well as you do tension build through overly verbose speechifying - do more of it! Also: never cast yourself as an Australian EVER AGAIN.
If this were true, he wouldn't have a string of wildly popular movies under his belt. You don't please audiences that much if you don't think of them when making your product.
Nonsense. I good art is made by people who do not think about their audience when making their art. A study was recently put out, and I'll have to find it later that basically said: highly rated, critically acclaimed movies consistently fail with test audiences. The general public doesn't like them: at first. Tarantino had to train audiences to like him. It took him a long time. Remember when Pulp-Fiction came out? It was kind of controversial right? And now it's canon. I think you guys are maybe misinterpreting me a little bit. I really like this guys movies, I'm a big fan - I've seen every one, and will continue to see everyone. But if you don't find his movies self-indulgent, you're being hoodwinked. Again, this is why people like them - because they don't pander - he has a crazy vision and he just fucking does it - to varying degrees of success. Also, for better or worse, he is as close to a remix artist a film-making has. He strips the bits and pieces - the music, the cinematography, genres and even scenes that he likes and pastes them together to make a collage of his intelligence. I mean, name one movie he has made that's isn't a re-working of a genre piece. Pulp Fiction is as close as it gets. You don't do that to please audiences. You do it to show off. It's really half the fun. The fact that we're pleased is a happy accident. Where anyone can get off saying he's not exploitative - all of his source material is exploitation and pulp - case in point, the Django movies, which have 37(!) shitty sequels.
