So you enjoy seeing hundreds to thousands of people being killed at a time, just as long as you don't get to see their faces. Got it.
Of course. As you've all maintained before "it is just a movie". So I want to enjoy that movie. Not dwell endlessly on the consequences of violence.
Just saw it today. Hilarious, but I felt bad laughing every single time. In the big shooting scene near the end, where that poor guy kept getting used as a meat shield, I swear I'll go to hell for laughing at it. I'd say it was pretty good, 7 or 8 out of 10. Don't know how to classify it other than an Inglorious Basterds copy, just set in a different time.
I can usually handle excessive violence in movies, but there were a few scenes that got to me. The first was when Django's wife was being whipped (her performance sold it) and the second was when the runaway slave got torn apart by the dogs. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie.
Actually, a proper psychopath would less disturbed by the consequences of violence. That it bums Dayton out is evidence he's not a psychopath.
Finally saw it too. All I can say is: whoa. BY FAR Tarantino's best yet and I'm on record saying that westerns really aren't my cup of tea. Which of course means that I didn't get many of the references to the genre except for the most obvious ones. Well, it isn't a western anyway, the date alone puts it outside the traditional time span. I have a very hard time deciding which actor deserves an Oscar nomination here. Waltz got one for supporting actor, but DiCaprio has totally earned one too. He's brilliant whereas Waltz is once again playing himself - not that this is a bad thing, mind you. Nicholson made an epic career out of it. Samuel L Jackson is brilliant too and for once not afraid to show his age (65) on screen. Actually all three should have been nominated but that's impossible. Jamie Foxx is perfectly cast in his role too but is never allowed to really shine next to to Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson. I do wonder why people complain about the violence in Tarantino movies. It's not better or worse than in others movies, only better choreographed and serves a purpose. Those movies don't have R and 18 ratings for nothing and there is no reason whatsoever to take fragile little minds with you. Not every movie has to be suitable for children and Tarantino's definitely are not PG13-at-any-price. Deal with it and give granny a chance to spoil the little critters while you enjoy a great movie. I pity all the hundreds of thousands who will watch this with crappy german dubbing. They'll miss 2/3 of this movie's brilliance. I'll go ahead and give it 9/10. Go see it.
Just a damn good fucking movie that freaked me out, made me laugh(Samuel L. Jackson character)...made me sad, and then made me happy all at the same time.
Not Tarantino's best by any stretch, but still a damn good and entertaining movie. I definitely enjoyed watching it, and my biggest complaint was we didn't get more of Christoph Waltz - he was insanely good.
I saw this over the weekend. For me, the killing spree at the end ruined it - specifically the killing of the sister. There had been a few points where I noticed that she gave as much care to the slaves as society would allow. That's a big deal, actually. When he "blew her away," I lost a lot of empathy and sympathy for Django.
She was the one that made the call that he be sent to the mines, though. Not even considering the punishment she had in store for his legally free wife who never hurt anyone herself. EDIT: Now that I think about it, she "earned" her death by treating Django and Hildy like slaves instead of the free people they technically were. If she'd called the sheriff or marshal or whatever, Django wouldn't have been able to escape and seek his revenge.
She was still complicit in a lifetime of human rights violations, fuck her. When he blew her away, I wondered why she flew at a completely different angle from how Django shot her.
The sister was an out-of-time archetype: the ever smiling, ever cordial, very American neighborhood monster. She even looks the part with a face and neck like a dozen visits to the beauty surgeon. And like the modern version, she always has the bull whip juuuust out of sight. She also showed her witchdom by flying off in the wrong direction
Django Unchained is much as expected, and similar to Inglorious Basterds in many respects. Too long, too much padding, but with great dialogue, great acting, lurching from moments of brilliance to moments of godawfulness - and I'm including the pyrotechnical violence in the latter category. Tarantino would be a magnificent director if he could ever grow up.
BASTERDS had a brilliant premise but I thought there was just too much talk, talk, talk. Now I like Tarantino's dialogue skills, but that was too much. I mean, you really wouldn't have a lot to change to make it into an audio book. DJANGO is a film for movie buffs. As I said, I'm only one half target audience since I don't really know a lot of westerns. Still enjoyed it tremendously, including the explosive end. That's one of those movie-movie moments if you get my drift, Tarantino playing around with conventions.
Basterds was enjoyable, but was among his more mediocre movies. I was thoroughly entertained throughout Django Unchained, and it resonated with me more than any recent movie I've seen. Django is the only one of his movies I've paid to see twice in theaters, and probably my #1 or #2 favorite movie of his.
That scene where the racist locals on their horses start to argue about how they can't see out of the eye-holes in the white hoods that a wife of one of the guys made—some are complaining, and the husband of the lady who made the hoods gets offended and huffy and the other guys are assuaging his feelings saying something like, "Now, we all appreciate how much effort Jenny [I think that was her name] put into these here hoods, but..."—that scene had me laughing harder than I have in a movie in a very long time. I didn't expect it to be so funny in parts. When I exited the theater though, I sort of looked around nervously at my fellow audience members, wondering how many of them have borderline IQs and will be rushing out to buy guns so they can be a sexy bad-ass, too.
In the movie's defense, I don't think the group is ever referred to as the KKK, although that's clearly what they're supposed to suggest.
Interesting discussion. I noticed not only a kind of alternate history being made, but a sliding form period-authentic to contemporary dialogue and tone that was fascinating. At the end, he calls his wife, "Little troublemaker," and she calls him, "Big troublemaker," and somehow that felt like the dynamic between men and women in the 21st, not the 19th century. Also, regarding the humor: I really lost it laughing when Django, given free reign in a clothing store for the first time in his life, appears in the next scene on a horse, dressed in powder-blue velvet, like an adult version of Little Lord Fauntleroy. His character had a fair amount of depth. Funny as that scene was, it underscored his unworldliness, which makes him appear vulnerable, in a sense. Of course, though, he is anything but vulnerable, with superhero powers of marksmanship and hand-to-hand combat ability. And he was a quick study when it came to acquiring that era's GQ version of the rebel killer with a mission, an identity that was paralleled by his increasingly sophisticated wardrobe choices: From "Clothes on Film": http://clothesonfilm.com/review-django-unchained/28791/ He is initiated as a killer by bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a slight man in expensive clothes; tweed, an Inverness (actually cotton), even a chinchilla coat (faux), who used to practise dentistry before he turned to the gun. In one of the film’s most amusing moments, after giving Django freedom Schultz offers to buy him a new suit – whatever he chooses. Django selects a blue two piece with lace cravat and knickerbockers, because after years in rags this is what he assumes a gentleman, or in this instance a gentleman’s valet would wear. It is tempting to laugh because he ‘got it wrong’, but this is not true. At this juncture in the story Django does not know who he is; being mocked for wearing a preposterous suit is part of his self-discovery. Django’s amusing valet attire disarms his enemies without even cocking a hammer. Of course when Django does open fire it is clear to Schultz that he shows potential for his (law abiding) bounty hunting profession, or to “Kill white folks and they pay you for it”. Now Django adopts what will become his uniform: a flat crown, sharply upturned brim hat with studded band and short green corduroy jacket belonging to decent singing cowboy ‘Little Joe’ from TV series Bonanza. This jacket means the same to Django as Clint Eastwood’s poncho in the Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns. Without it he is playing a role; with it he is Django: bounty hunter, killer and hero – it ascribes his personality. Were Quentin Tarantino to make a follow up to Django Unchained, and his screenplay is surely written with that in mind, he would be crazy to ditch this costume. Django needs his green jacket and hat just as Superman needs his cape.
