Lazy Jones
Member
It´s Snakes on a Plane´s fault, Samuel Jackson is like a parody of himself nowadays.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Django Unchained | Hype Thread | QT Goes Western
- Thread starter Expendable.
- Start date
- Status
It´s Snakes on a Plane´s fault, Samuel Jackson is like a parody of himself nowadays.
It isn't, it can't be in a world where Pulp Fiction exists. I don't think it comes close to 2nd or 3rd either. I had no idea anyone held it as their favourite, but it seems lots do here which is interesting. It has a couple of outstanding moments up there with the best stuff he's done, but beyond that I really didn't like it much. However, it introduced us to Christoph Waltz.
oh, that's pretty cool
absolutely not.
The movie just killed off the two most entertaining characters (for completely no reason) and the ending didn't make up for it - I didn't much care for the shooting sequences either.
Totally 100% agree with this post and I'm in the same boat.
sp3ctr3
Member
Watched the movie this past weekend and really enjoyed it. It was longer than I expected but only noticed it after the movie.
Did have a little ekstra experience during the movie.
All of a sudden this dude 2 rows in front of me faints and passes out on the floor? Falls right out of his seat. Movie is paused and paramedics come to the rescue. After about 10 minutes the movie restarts.
Well, that's Tarantino for you
Did have a little ekstra experience during the movie.
During the Mandingo fistfight.
All of a sudden this dude 2 rows in front of me faints and passes out on the floor? Falls right out of his seat. Movie is paused and paramedics come to the rescue. After about 10 minutes the movie restarts.
Well, that's Tarantino for you
Discotheque
Banned
Only it was immensely cooler in Kill Bill, which was also the superior film.
God...frey Jones
Banned
Quite enjoyed it. It's not his best in my opinion though, I've only seen Inglorious Basterds once (can't bring myself to watch it again yet) and this once but I'd say IG just tops it.
That said, it's fucking entertaining, and Waltz and Dicaprio were intensely brilliant.
Foxx was great too and I loved the initial moments of the major shoot out with Django at Candieland, but the fucking rap song hurt that sequence. Argh!
The wrestling scene got to me, as did the dog attack, but I think thats because I was with the missus and I was feeling protective of her haha!
All said and done, great film. I'll need to see it again though to really get a grasp of where it sits amongst the pantheon of QT greats.
That said, it's fucking entertaining, and Waltz and Dicaprio were intensely brilliant.
The movie definitely lost something when they were killed off.
The wrestling scene got to me, as did the dog attack, but I think thats because I was with the missus and I was feeling protective of her haha!
All said and done, great film. I'll need to see it again though to really get a grasp of where it sits amongst the pantheon of QT greats.
I thought it worked perfectly in that scene compared to the way rap music was used as a soundtrack in The Man with the Iron Fists.
100 Black Coffins sequence was great, come on!
Oh, don't get me wrong, Kill Bills are terrific. It's only by standard of Tarantino movies that they'd end up nearer the bottom of the scale.
I really love Kill Bill I and it's among my favorite films, even if on Tarantino-scale it's in the second half. Kill Bill II, less so... I know they are one film and shouldn't be considered apart, but they are too different for me not to. Especially as I like Part II much less than Part I. Part II has great training scenes and the iconic grave escape shot, sure, but everything else feels inferior. Even the villains in the first one are miles better than in the second one. Bill is great, but nobody really feels as formidable as O-Ren did. Hell, her death might be even more satisfying than that of Bill. I guess Bill's death and scenes with him would be infinitely better the way they were meant to be, and as they are in TBA.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Kill Bills are terrific. It's only by standard of Tarantino movies that they'd end up nearer the bottom of the scale.
I really love Kill Bill I and it's among my favorite films, even if on Tarantino-scale it's in the second half. Kill Bill II, less so... I know they are one film and shouldn't be considered apart, but they are too different for me not to. Especially as I like Part II much less than Part I. Part II has great training scenes and the iconic grave escape shot, sure, but everything else feels inferior. Even the villains in the first one are miles better than in the second one. Bill is great, but nobody really feels as formidable as O-Ren did. Hell, her death might be even more satisfying than that of Bill. I guess Bill's death and scenes with him would be infinitely better the way they were meant to be, and as they are in TBA.
beyond_death
Member
Saw it today. Fucking amazing. I'm not sure where it ranks among the Tarantino films I've seen (which is all of them except Jackie Brown), but I dont even know if I have a clear favourite.
I was the only one laughing when 100 Black Coffins started primarily because I did not expect a Rick Ross track in a QT movie. Also, Kill Bill is better than IG IMO.
I saw the film last night with only the first trailer as a reference. Thought it was a pretty great movie the first two thirds, but when they reach candyland, things went downhill and never really climbed back up. All in all, I'd say it's not as good as IB and I'm kind of sad that QT was the person to make the perfect Western but it seems he didn't really go all the way with it.
Best scene was the "hood scene". Totally feels like a Blazing Saddles scene.
Best scene was the "hood scene". Totally feels like a Blazing Saddles scene.
Ingueferroque
Banned
They really could have edited an hour of footage out of the movie.
Just me that thinks the best parts of the film are from meeting Calvin onwards? As enjoyable as it is up until then, and Waltz especially is magnificent, it seems a little disjointed. But the film's grown on me every time I've seen it (and I'd implore those like Sculli, Solo, Eli who had their problems with it to see it again knowing what's coming; I certainly had problems with it but they've evaporated on further views). I think the Old Ben speech is magnificent, SLJ is wonderful, the scene with Hildi and Schultz is just lovely, and the shoot out's song really worked for me the second and third time. All three times though, I think the final scenes are my absolute favourite. Foxx just reeks of charisma.
Saint Gregory
Member
I actually fainted during the adrenaline to the heart scene in Pulp Fiction. The girl I was on a date with (our first date too) managed to drag me out into the lobby with someone else's help. I was so impressed that she took care of me and didn't empty my pockets and simply leave me on the theatre floor that we started dating regularly and ended up together for three years. That's still the longest relationship I've ever been in... over fainting during Pulp Fiction.Watched the movie this past weekend and really enjoyed it. It was longer than I expected but only noticed it after the movie.
Did have a little ekstra experience during the movie.
During the Mandingo fistfight.
All of a sudden this dude 2 rows in front of me faints and passes out on the floor? Falls right out of his seat. Movie is paused and paramedics come to the rescue. After about 10 minutes the movie restarts.
Well, that's Tarantino for you
You should fix this. I didn't appreciate it much when I saw it the first time but I watched it again years later and now it's one of my favorite movies.
I'm definitely seeing it again, it's the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time.
By saying that the film sort of comes to a halt or goes downhill after Calvin and King's deaths is more of a testament to Leo and Waltz's performances rather than a total criticism of the film. As I don't really have any problems with the fact that they died. It's just natural that it is not as enjoyable since these two charismatic actors are no longer there. The Old Ben speech when Calvin gives a phrenology lecture to King and Django and then brings out Broomhilda is the best scene in the film I think. Made all the more better when you find out that it was Leo's real blood and he just continued with the take after slamming his hand onto a glass. Great stuff. I have no problems with Jamie Foxx, and I'd be lying if I wasn't pretty overjoyed at the turn and smile after Candyland Big House blows up. It's just the shootout stuff isn't how I like shootouts, personal preference I guess, it was very Kill Billish, and that (Vol.1) is my least favourite Tarantino.
I have a feeling that there could easily be different cuts of this film. For those who read the script, was the Scott Harmony stuff filmed at all? I loved that bit.
I loved this movie. I expected it to pale in comparison to Inglourious Basterds from the impressions I heard by others but I was pleasantly surprised. I do believe the film sags an unfortunate amount in the third act before reaching the fourth (it's almost like Tarantino does it on purpose.
) and might have actually worked better if
One thing that bothers me however, is that people keep saying that
Edit: Also, another little thing that I liked was that
He has this big climactic action scene with the Candyland shootout then several slow, steady scenes. I was sitting there wondering "wait, how much more is left??"
Django's capture immediately followed Candy and Schultz' deaths and the shootout occurred when he returned from the Australian slavers.
One thing that bothers me however, is that people keep saying that
both Candy and Schultz' deaths happened for no reason. I don't say this often, but what movie were you guys watching? It's clear from very early on that while Schultz was a bounty hunter he's also a very moral person. In the bar when Django asks about what Schultz does, Schultz mentions he hasn't studied dentistry in some time but he never mentions what made him switch jobs (at least I don't think he does). It's pretty clear however, from the speech in which he's trying to convince Django to shoot the father on the farm he's got morals and it's possible he entered into the business specifically to hunt down slavers (who he clearly despises) or just bad people in general. He mentions that while Django would be murdering this guy in front of his son, this man thought nothing of killing those people in the carriage he robbed. It's clear it matters to him the difference between right and wrong.
You can actually clearly see his moral conflict throughout the entire second half of the movie. While he convinces Django to become a black slaver to save his wife, it's clear he had no idea what he was really asking of Django. That was the whole point of the scene in which he suggests Django tones it down as to not turn Candy off. He doesn't really think Candy will be turned off by Django being so brash, he just doesn't want to see someone he cares about go down that path. Django however knows what he's doing is only enticing Candy and is prepared to do whatever it takes to get his wife back. He's a much harder individual and had much more to lose in the situation, so he never thought twice to do the most horrible things he could as long as it led to his wife.
The dog scene is probably the scene where the movie hits you over the head the most with Schultz' morality. In a situation in which him and Django are slavers and shouldn't even care a little about a slave's life he risks both Django's and his cover as well as their lives by offering to buy the slave from Candy. Why would he do something so stupid (while noble) if it weren't for his morals? Tarantino gives you the answer key by showing flashes of the dog tearing up the slave later on when Schultz gets distraught after being bested by Candy.
He couldn't stand not only being beaten by such a despicable individual, but allowing such an evil person to continue living. Not only did he know his life would be forfeit if he killed Candy, but he even risked the death of Django and Broomhilda because in his mind he felt like standing up to such evil was more important than everything else. If he allowed this man to continue to brutalize and kill slaves without any consequence he knew he couldn't live with himself. Even Django was ready to leave and let Candy go. Ironically, it was probably the more realistic option, but Schultz couldn't allow his morality to be bound by realism or laws.
One of the most interesting about Schultz is how he's one of the only characters in all of Tarantino's revenge movies that's actually bound by the law. The Bride, The Basterds, Shoshanna, etc. are all prepared to suffer whatever consequences come with their revenge, many of them dying in the progress. When I saw the trailers for Django Unchained I expected the same. I thought it would just be two guys going around the south burning down everything in their path to rescue Django's wife. I was stunned to see Schultz mention how he couldn't just go and kill people or else there would be a bounty against him and how they'd need to convince Candy to sell off Broomhilda because she was legally his property. This fact brings extra significance to his killing of Candy. His violation of the law and rejection of due process is a sign that he sees Candy's transgressions as eclipsing the law of the land- especially since everything Candy did was probably legal, or at the very least not illegal enough to produce the desired result in Schultz' eyes. Schultz' shooting of Candy represents a rebellion against not only slavery, but the society which would stand by and let a man like this continue to live while mistreating, brutalizing and murdering his slaves. He literally "couldn't resist".
You can actually clearly see his moral conflict throughout the entire second half of the movie. While he convinces Django to become a black slaver to save his wife, it's clear he had no idea what he was really asking of Django. That was the whole point of the scene in which he suggests Django tones it down as to not turn Candy off. He doesn't really think Candy will be turned off by Django being so brash, he just doesn't want to see someone he cares about go down that path. Django however knows what he's doing is only enticing Candy and is prepared to do whatever it takes to get his wife back. He's a much harder individual and had much more to lose in the situation, so he never thought twice to do the most horrible things he could as long as it led to his wife.
The dog scene is probably the scene where the movie hits you over the head the most with Schultz' morality. In a situation in which him and Django are slavers and shouldn't even care a little about a slave's life he risks both Django's and his cover as well as their lives by offering to buy the slave from Candy. Why would he do something so stupid (while noble) if it weren't for his morals? Tarantino gives you the answer key by showing flashes of the dog tearing up the slave later on when Schultz gets distraught after being bested by Candy.
He couldn't stand not only being beaten by such a despicable individual, but allowing such an evil person to continue living. Not only did he know his life would be forfeit if he killed Candy, but he even risked the death of Django and Broomhilda because in his mind he felt like standing up to such evil was more important than everything else. If he allowed this man to continue to brutalize and kill slaves without any consequence he knew he couldn't live with himself. Even Django was ready to leave and let Candy go. Ironically, it was probably the more realistic option, but Schultz couldn't allow his morality to be bound by realism or laws.
One of the most interesting about Schultz is how he's one of the only characters in all of Tarantino's revenge movies that's actually bound by the law. The Bride, The Basterds, Shoshanna, etc. are all prepared to suffer whatever consequences come with their revenge, many of them dying in the progress. When I saw the trailers for Django Unchained I expected the same. I thought it would just be two guys going around the south burning down everything in their path to rescue Django's wife. I was stunned to see Schultz mention how he couldn't just go and kill people or else there would be a bounty against him and how they'd need to convince Candy to sell off Broomhilda because she was legally his property. This fact brings extra significance to his killing of Candy. His violation of the law and rejection of due process is a sign that he sees Candy's transgressions as eclipsing the law of the land- especially since everything Candy did was probably legal, or at the very least not illegal enough to produce the desired result in Schultz' eyes. Schultz' shooting of Candy represents a rebellion against not only slavery, but the society which would stand by and let a man like this continue to live while mistreating, brutalizing and murdering his slaves. He literally "couldn't resist".
Edit: Also, another little thing that I liked was that
Schultz was a dentist and Calvin Candy was a rotten individual with rotten teeth. Not only does this show that they are entire opposites of each other (and Schultz is as good as Candy is bad), but just as Schultz would fix a person's rotten teeth, he fixes what's wrong with society by killing off Candy.
I doubt it, they wanted Sacha Baron Cohen to play the role of Scotty originally but he had scheduling conflicts or something stopping him from being cast. As far as I know they never cast a Scotty after that.
Agreed Axiology.
Oh yea, I remember hearing Sacha Baron Cohen was to be in this. That's a shame, it's another great Candie scene.
It was all very fitting I think and completely in line with their characters, certainly didn't happen for no reason. Their loss still hurts the film though, like I say because they were so great to watch. Not much can be done about that.
Oh yea, I remember hearing Sacha Baron Cohen was to be in this. That's a shame, it's another great Candie scene.
Saw it saturday with my gf. Glad we watched it with original sound(track) although it sadly had german subtitles. I always try to persuade all my friends to watch these movies with there original soundtrack (although german dubbing is really good). Don't know how IB works in german. Rather bad i guess.
Characters i remember most are Stephen and Candy. Waltz was good but reminded me a little to much of IB (don't know why).
I think Foxx was also good but i have always kind a of neutral opinion of him in movies. Not bad but he doesn't catch me like other actors.
Film could have lost 10 - 20 minutes but most of it in the second part.
Great movie which i'm sure will have several new details and suprises when i watch it again.
SPOILER: First scene with Stephen was really great. "In tha big house???
Characters i remember most are Stephen and Candy. Waltz was good but reminded me a little to much of IB (don't know why).
I think Foxx was also good but i have always kind a of neutral opinion of him in movies. Not bad but he doesn't catch me like other actors.
Film could have lost 10 - 20 minutes but most of it in the second part.
Great movie which i'm sure will have several new details and suprises when i watch it again.
SPOILER: First scene with Stephen was really great. "In tha big house???
Net_Wrecker
Member
I don't think the stuff before Candyland is disjointed at all. In fact, I think it's much better paced and touches on a tone that QT's never really attempted before with the whole buddy adventure thing. Everything at and after Candyland is very much "standard" Tarantino, but I have a smile on my face for nearly the entire first hour. It's pretty much perfect IMO.
I heard he wanted to do Les Misérables instead.
we live in strange times where film makers fight over Sacha Baron Cohen to play in their movie
Synth_floyd
Banned
Just saw it today. Amazing movie. One of Tarantino's best and the best movie I've seen in theaters, probably since Star Trek 09. Peter Jackson should take note: this is how you entertain an audience for 3 hours. Christoph Waltz and Leo DiCaprio put in amazing performances. The only bad thing about the movie is that it basically runs out of steam after the climactic scene.
crimzonflame
Member
Saw it last night and loved it. Liked it better than IB.
TrumanBurbank
Member
He is a comedic genius.
Messofanego
Banned
Django Unchained: Hysterical Inaccuracy
Yeah, QT should keep his mouth shut. Don't go arguing for historical accuracy for amount of n word usage, when your own movie clearly isn't.
Yeah, QT should keep his mouth shut. Don't go arguing for historical accuracy for amount of n word usage, when your own movie clearly isn't.
B
bomb
Unconfirmed Member
Who cares. One youtube video means nothing nor does any other amount of historical fact finding. It's a movie. His creation. Don't like it, don't see it. Same thing with all other forms of art. Surprise, It's fiction!
Glass Rebel
Member
Regardless of how I feel about the topic, the Kat Williams, Paul Mooney & Gwyneth Paltrow roadtrip was genius.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Saw it a couple days ago. Thought it was good. Guess I was expecting more. Wife loved it.
Did you even watch the video? The guy said he was going to make a case for it being historically inaccurate, then he just tells a bunch of dumb jokes. derher jewish guy in the KKK. I guess he's a comedian or something. I would really like to see YOU prove QT is wrong about the N-word usage, but I'm guessing you can't.
VistraNorrez
Member
It's an interesting point (presented on a comedy show, so I wouldn't take it too seriously).
Gozer the Gozerian
Member
I actually liked the 2pac song more than the Rick Ross scene. Though I wish that shootout where the 2pac song plays wasn't even in the movie.
Glass Rebel
Member
Upon relistening the soundtrack I gotta say that my favourite track is Freedom. I was getting serious goosebumps during that flashback 
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
Didn't go into this wanting historical accuracies. I just wanted it to be entertaining, and it absolutely was. Had a lot of fun watching this.
It's actually irrelevant whether the rest of the film is historically innacurate or not in regards to the N-word being dropped. It's actually really frustrating that that's a point of controversy and that the film is being labeled as 'racist' or 'politically incorrect.' Take more than the shallowest glance at the movie in the form of counting up the number of times a word is used and actually pay attention. The film is clearly, mind numbingly, unsubtly anti-slavery. The word is clearly, unabashedly used only by the 'bad guys' as a way to have audiences despise these characters more.
It's irrelevant whether other things were historically accurate because that's not something the filmmakers felt was integral to the story. The common use of the N-word was and as such, will be used to a historically accurate degree. It's to hit you as an audience member over the head and make you understand what it was like back then. That is all that needs to be historically accurate in order to resonate and get the point across. This is a device Tarantino uses to tell a story. That is all the proof one needs to show that it is an absolutely valid use of the word.
I wasn't even over the moon with the film but jesus this kind of shallow dismissal of the film is frustrating.
It's irrelevant whether other things were historically accurate because that's not something the filmmakers felt was integral to the story. The common use of the N-word was and as such, will be used to a historically accurate degree. It's to hit you as an audience member over the head and make you understand what it was like back then. That is all that needs to be historically accurate in order to resonate and get the point across. This is a device Tarantino uses to tell a story. That is all the proof one needs to show that it is an absolutely valid use of the word.
I wasn't even over the moon with the film but jesus this kind of shallow dismissal of the film is frustrating.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
My man.
Lee Chaolan
Member
This movie is so good. Any word on when we might get a Blu-ray release?
Messofanego
Banned
I don't know what you're rambling about. If QT had just said the film was not meant to be historically accurate and was just meant to be entertainment with a serious issue in the background just like Inglorious Basterds, he wouldn't catch as much flak. It's clear he can't talk about the themes in the movie seriously as evidenced in that bad Channel 4 interview.
But none of those guy's complaints were actually about Tarantino's usage of the n-word...
Also, the KKK scene wasn't really about the actual KKK. They never call themselves the KKK and as for them not needing the masks to be racist, that was the whole point of the mask scene. These guys weren't an organized KKK unit, they were "raiders" whose leader arbitrarily insisted that they wear masks. While the point of the joke is to make fun of the KKK's attire, the particular group depicted has nothing to do with them.
He's got a point about the sunglasses, though. Colored lenses were available back then, but actual "sunglasses" the way Django has them weren't around. Of course, whether Tarantino said it or not (and I'm certain it's the latter), it's clear this movie isn't supposed to be a period piece historically-accurate drama. Anyone silly enough to entertain that idea is most likely not thinking straight. Even if Tarantino said he was dealing with real issues that actually occurred, that doesn't mean he's saying his movie is 100% a work of historical probability.
Given that the bulk of the historical inaccuracies mentioned have nothing to do with the actual racism in the movie it's looking more like these are just scapegoats being used to dismiss the whole movie rather than actual concrete issues. It's like arguing There Will Be Blood is a piece of shit cause the guns have no kickback.
Also, the KKK scene wasn't really about the actual KKK. They never call themselves the KKK and as for them not needing the masks to be racist, that was the whole point of the mask scene. These guys weren't an organized KKK unit, they were "raiders" whose leader arbitrarily insisted that they wear masks. While the point of the joke is to make fun of the KKK's attire, the particular group depicted has nothing to do with them.
He's got a point about the sunglasses, though. Colored lenses were available back then, but actual "sunglasses" the way Django has them weren't around. Of course, whether Tarantino said it or not (and I'm certain it's the latter), it's clear this movie isn't supposed to be a period piece historically-accurate drama. Anyone silly enough to entertain that idea is most likely not thinking straight. Even if Tarantino said he was dealing with real issues that actually occurred, that doesn't mean he's saying his movie is 100% a work of historical probability.
Given that the bulk of the historical inaccuracies mentioned have nothing to do with the actual racism in the movie it's looking more like these are just scapegoats being used to dismiss the whole movie rather than actual concrete issues. It's like arguing There Will Be Blood is a piece of shit cause the guns have no kickback.
He's done this in many interviews, or at the very least forced the point that he's making a movie and telling a story. And using that one interview is a bad example, since there are others where he answers the same question directly.
Saw this last week, hell of a film. As I think I saw someone else post on here, it's one of the few Samuel L Jackson performances where he disappears into the role rather than playing a variation on Jules Winnfield - his first scene is spellbinding. Great acting across the board, terrific dialogue, some absolutely brutal violence (my girlfriend shut her eyes but said the sound was nearly as bad, I'm sure you know which scene I'm talking about). As others have said, it falls a bit flat once
, but you can understand the necessity of that happening, I think.
Schultz is killed
I thought there was going to be some substance in there, but there wasn't.
Spring-Loaded
Member
He says "is," I'm fairly sure.
Django losing his mentor and only friend who knows how to use a gun in the middle of a plantation full of armed slavers makes the shootout, and everything that follows, feel more dire. Schultz is easy to love and him being killed makes it easy to fear for Django and Broomhilda's fate. The abruptness of Candie's and Schultz' deaths made me feel like anything could happen after that. If you don't care about the remaining characters by that point, you probably won't feel any different by the end, but I did care, and felt the last section of the film benefitted from having such a likeable character taken away.
Also, the way I saw th eentire film probably helped my perception of the last act. I don't consider this a revenge movie in the traditional sense because the protagonists ultimate goal isn't revenge. It's more a film about rebellion in that Django lives in a world where he's told he can't be married, can't ride horses, can't look a white person in the eye and that he can't amount to anything, yet he does.
He defies 1858 America's ideals throughout the film up to the Candie Land shootout and continues to do so afterward. Him cleaning up at the end was as satisfying for me as everything he does up until that point.
The film does change after that climax, but not necessarily for the worse.
- Status