Tarantino western - Django Unchained

fatknacker

I thought it was a little bit of light comic relief.

johnny_ultimate

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Strangely enough his appearance was just an easter egg for me. I just thought 'oh there's Quentin in his own film again, I wonder how what he'll do this time,' but it didn't ruin the film for me. I find it difficult to comprehend how people can let themselves be so affected by a cameo from the director, it's not the same as witnessing a murder or living through a war.

Oh, I think it's well down the list of problems I had with the film, which overall I thoroughly enjoyed. I do understand how many are seeing it as indicative of Tarantino's worst traits, though.

More than anything, I just hope to hell his next film isn't a grindhouse revenge film. He's riffed on the same idea four times now (five if we count two Kill Bills). There's loads of interesting ideas, funny moments and strong characters in Django Unchained - but the director just needs to leave his comfort zone, because going by previous evidence he has more ambitious narratives in him.

Skerries

I had to turn off that Japanese Django as I couldn't understand a word that was being said, it needed to be left in the original Japanese with subtitles added on

Skerries

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

And why were all the hired guns who rushed in the first time suddenly not on the plantation anymore when he returned?

because they were in their quarters having baths and picking their toenails when Django came and blasted them all

nyarlothothep

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh, I think it's well down the list of problems I had with the film, which overall I thoroughly enjoyed. I do understand how many are seeing it as indicative of Tarantino's worst traits, though.

More than anything, I just hope to hell his next film isn't a grindhouse revenge film. He's riffed on the same idea four times now (five if we count two Kill Bills). There's loads of interesting ideas, funny moments and strong characters in Django Unchained - but the director just needs to leave his comfort zone, because going by previous evidence he has more ambitious narratives in him.

I think Kill Bill was more a straight up grindhouse revenge flick whereas IB and Django married that idea to the treatment of historical discoures. But yeah, I think Django is the perfect realisation of that latter path and there is no need for him to make yet another 70s influenced revenge thriller. A departure from that, even temporarily would be welcome. However this is what sells, Django seems to be his most expensive film yet at 100,000 million and people like the familiar and explosions at the end.

endswell

bit of context re accents. www.vulture.com/m/2012/12/a-guide-to-all-the-movie-and-tv-references-in-django-unchained.html



Australian accents: Tarantino’s Australian accent as an employee of the LeQuint-Dickey Mining Company is probably meant as a shout-out to the Ozploitation films the writer-director likes so much, but we also have a crazy alternate theory: It might also be a nod to James Mason’s famously awful southern accent in the infamous Mandingo (see under: Mandingo Circuit) — an accent so bad it actually sounds Australian.

augustus gloop

my GF rightly pointed out in 1858 or whenever, there would have been no such thing as an Australian accent, justIrish and English ones coming from Oz. She also informs me that one of the guys accompanying QT was one of the main actors in Wolf Creek, who made a name for himself in Australian kids tv. Go figure....

Good movie, I left it thinking QT had tried to uphold the integrity of the "Western" movie format. Pretty hard to keep an audience for 2 hrs and 45 mins without CGI and car chases and T and A everywhere.

The Pontiac

augustus gloop wrote: »

my GF rightly pointed out in 1858 or whenever, there would have been no such thing as an Australian accent, justIrish and English ones coming from Oz.

Yeah, I also thought wtf? That was more off-putting than Tarantino's cameo in itself. Not the accents, but what were Aussie cowboys doing there?

Maybe a few aussie's did indeed head for America at that time, but as you say, it was mostly the Irish and British that left Australia for the US then.

nyarlothothep

I think in a way Quentin Tarantino will probably never break out from what he's settled into. I think there has been an evolution of sorts in his film making since Kill Bill but the emotional depth people ascribed to Jackie Brown was a bit of a red herring so far as I can remember given that it was one of his intentions to make a film adaptation of a book, (can't remember what it's based on) and that's what he did, he doesn't want to do it again it would seem, but such depth would be partly derived from the book he modelled his script on I would presume. Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are linked by their urban settings and focus on crime. Kill Bill is straight up revenge exploitation, IB and Django are exploitation revenge flicks with historical content. Interestingly Django does have some emotion depth like Jackie Brown but not on the same scale. I think what he does, he does really well. I think IB is ok but not great in retrospect but to give the man his dues, I have always left relatively satisfied after seeing one of his films, with the exception of Kill Bill 2. As a mainstream non mainstream filmmaker I enjoy his films compared to what's out there at the moment in the cinemas.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh, I think it's well down the list of problems I had with the film, which overall I thoroughly enjoyed. I do understand how many are seeing it as indicative of Tarantino's worst traits, though.

More than anything, I just hope to hell his next film isn't a grindhouse revenge film. He's riffed on the same idea four times now (five if we count two Kill Bills). There's loads of interesting ideas, funny moments and strong characters in Django Unchained - but the director just needs to leave his comfort zone, because going by previous evidence he has more ambitious narratives in him.

There's rumours flying around that his next one is based in ww2 again and is about a regiment of black soldiers, based on a subplot that was excised from basterds apparently. Basically we're probably in for at least one more film of this ilk.

SK1979

Went to see this last week and have been throwing it back and forth in my head as to whether I enjoyed it. I guess I did enjoy it (and will probably need to see it again) but I definitely feel it lacked something. For me, there were no absolute stand out scenes in it. Even something like Kill Bill 2 which would be low enough down on my favourite films of his has some amazing scenes (like the burial scene), but Django just lacked them I felt. And the cameo was pretty bad, my main issue with it was that it wasn't a cameo, it was about a 5-8 minute scene, too long.

Good points for me were Waltz and Di Caprio, wasn't completely sold on Foxx and Jackson disappointed me a little. I think with Jackson, I had this pre-conception that he was going to be a lot more evil than he actually was so felt kind of let down by that. The humour was spot on as well this time, some real laugh out loud moments which definitely helped to carry the long running time.

I guess I'd give it 7/10, might raise it a notch or two after I watch it again.

FreezeUp

SK1979 wrote: »

I guess I'd give it 7/10, might raise it a notch or two after I watch it again.

I did.

Ash.J.Williams

yeah i watched it again..still love it...

Would tarantino lose it if i told him i got a blazing saddles vibe here and there!! ..

nyarlothothep

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

yeah i watched it again..still love it...

Would tarantino lose it if i told him i got a blazing saddles vibe here and there!! ..

He might shut your butt down, whatever that entails...

Roar

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

yeah i watched it again..still love it...

Would tarantino lose it if i told him i got a blazing saddles vibe here and there!! ..

The KKK Hood scene felt like a deleted scene from Blazing Saddles tbh!

Icarus Wings

Finally saw this last night and found it very enjoyable. DiCaprio and Waltz were on the top of their games and the interaction between those two (particularly in scenes like the dinner table) was a joy to behold. With snappy dialogue and their gift of turning a phrase, what more could you ask for?!? Loved it!

gg2

So disappointing. Tarantino's cameo made me cringe. Wish he had developed on Django and Hilda's story line alot more, just didn't really care whether he got her in the end or not. Thought the shoot out's were poor too....

krudler

Roar wrote: »

The KKK Hood scene felt like a deleted scene from Blazing Saddles tbh!

ha I'd forgotten that scene, that was fantastic. the whinging about the eye holes and your mam storming off had the whole cinema laughing.

Linguo

We loved this, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson stole the show completely! Look forward to seeing it again just for their performances alone:)

jones

i think the weakest of the lot was Jamie Foxx he was ok but compared to the rest he seemed slightly off

DainBramage

jones wrote: »

i think the weakest of the lot was Jamie Foxx he was ok but compared to the rest he seemed slightly off

just watched it last night and enjoyed it, though Foxx was a little weak I it I felt also.
Tarantino kept him off camera tool long for a lead imo e.g for the lengthy dinner table scene he had almost no part in it.

also did anyone notice most of the actors teeth were in pretty bad shape!
nice touch to reflect the era.

Da Shins Kelly

jones wrote: »

i think the weakest of the lot was Jamie Foxx he was ok but compared to the rest he seemed slightly off

Yeah, I felt like Foxx was overshadowed by Waltz and DiCaprio. I've never really been that keen on Jamie Foxx as an actor anyway though. I remember in the early stages when this movie was in the works, there was talk that Will Smith was going to play Django, and I actually would have preferred to see that. That's neither here nor there now though, and I think the issue with the Django character is more to do with the writing. I don't think Tarantino actually wrote the character as well as he did the others. He barely came across as a lead character.

Tar.Aldarion

I didn't even notice tarantino in it.

Ash.J.Williams

A high ranking Aussie actor bailed out during the filming and bad mouthed the production, that could be another side to the cameo, I thought qt was one if the bag heads

DainBramage

The Oz accents - if it was related to Quentins love of Ozploitation well it was ham-fisted and with no real historical reference afaik just made it a little confusing.
Only succeeded in making his cameo even dafter. But I did enjoy his scene where he pretended to throw dynamite at the lads in the cage

tbh was neither here no there to me, still a great movie.

dr.bollocko

I really thought Foxx was a bit of a weak link too.

He disappointed when he had many scene stealing opportunities.

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

A high ranking Aussie actor bailed out during the filming and bad mouthed the production, that could be another side to the cameo, I thought qt was one if the bag heads

To be fair to Anthony LaPagia he hardly bad mouthed the production. He had a understandable grievance and when asked about the situation answered honestly. He was scheduled for one days shooting and the day was constantly getting moved back and when he informed Tarantino and the producers of his commitment to another film he was told to dump that film. He refused to as the other film raised most of its financing due to the fact that he was cast.

Quiet a few high profile actors took parts and left due to similiar issues with shot dates being repeatedly put back. Kurt Russell, Kevin Costner and Sasha Baron Cohen were all cast at one stage and all three quit for the same reason that LaPaglia did.

jones

I wonder what Will Smiths Django would of been like?

Da Shins Kelly

jones wrote: »

I wonder what Will Smiths Django would of been like?

I think I would have far preferred him in the role than Jamie Foxx. Something about Jamie Foxx is quite unlikeable to me.

krudler

jones wrote: »

I wonder what Will Smiths Django would of been like?

pixelburp

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I think I would have far preferred him in the role than Jamie Foxx. Something about Jamie Foxx is quite unlikeable to me.

Yeah I'd agree with that; whilst my opinion on the film wavered up and down, my dislike for Foxx was a constant. He's charmless & dull as a leading man, bordering on the unlikeable; and occupies that list of Hollywood actors who by all rights shouldn't be as big a star as they are. First and foremost of course, I don't think he's a good actor

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with that; whilst my opinion on the film wavered up and down, my dislike for Foxx was a constant. He's charmless & dull as a leading man, bordering on the unlikeable; and occupies that list of Hollywood actors who by all rights shouldn't be as big a star as they are. First and foremost of course, I don't think he's a good actor

And he's meant to be a right cockbag on set. Didn't he disrupt filming of Miami Vice constantly with stupid demands? I dont think he's even acting in Any Given Sunday, himself and LL Cool J got into a fistfight on set.

WHIP IT!

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with that; whilst my opinion on the film wavered up and down, my dislike for Foxx was a constant. He's charmless & dull as a leading man, bordering on the unlikeable; and occupies that list of Hollywood actors who by all rights shouldn't be as big a star as they are. First and foremost of course, I don't think he's a good actor

Would agree with that although I liked him in Collateral. I don't think he has it as a Leading Man although I must admit I've never seen Ray which I gather he was quite good in.

Da Shins Kelly

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with that; whilst my opinion on the film wavered up and down, my dislike for Foxx was a constant. He's charmless & dull as a leading man, bordering on the unlikeable; and occupies that list of Hollywood actors who by all rights shouldn't be as big a star as they are. First and foremost of course, I don't think he's a good actor

Definitely agree with the bit in bold. He was overshadowed by Christoph Waltz and DiCaprio at every turn in terms of charisma and presence. The scenes in Candyland should have been Foxx's opportunity to stand out, but he didn't seem to take it, and instead those scenes were really all about Waltz and DiCaprio playing off each other. I'm still unsure about whether it was Foxx's portrayal of the character or if the character itself was just a little underdeveloped in the writing for what was supposed to be a lead character. It may have been a bit of both. I still think that Will Smith would have been good in the role though. He's a better actor for a start, but I think he'd have been much easier to sympathize with (although I still found myself rooting for Django throughout the film regardless).

Sinfonia

Not to labour the rapper theme, but I think André 3000 or Mos Def could have been brilliant in that role.

Kinski

This hasn't resonated with me at all. I'd largely forgotten about it until I came on here and saw the thread, which leads me to regard it as throw-away entertainment (albeit very good throw-away entertainment.) Tarantino is capable of so much more.

Ash.J.Williams

I think the mainstream take QT way to seriously...they don't like him and i think they're a little jealous of him, because his big screen movies are huuge!

All the talk before Django was about "oooooh slavery"....just like basterds was "oooooh the nazis"

in the end he just makes highly entertaining movies and writes great dialogue.

Dermighty

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In Unchained, he's still awful but gives the worst performance of all. Tarantino's already testing attention spans with his third act, but it seems fair enough to say it was his appearance that broke a lot of people's connection with the film, and the remaining fifteen minutes offered little in the way of satisfying payoff.

I agree, besides his sh!t acting he was instantly recognisable which detracted from the immersion is built up up to that point.

Everything after the dining room scene was a downer for me.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

The scenes in Candyland should have been Foxx's opportunity to stand out, but he didn't seem to take it, and instead those scenes were really all about Waltz and DiCaprio playing off each other. I'm still unsure about whether it was Foxx's portrayal of the character or if the character itself was just a little underdeveloped in the writing for what was supposed to be a lead character.

Maybe it was an anti-hero type performance and character, though most anti heroes I've seen have a lot of humour (Bruce Willis in the fifth element as an example)

conorhal

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with that; whilst my opinion on the film wavered up and down, my dislike for Foxx was a constant. He's charmless & dull as a leading man, bordering on the unlikeable; and occupies that list of Hollywood actors who by all rights shouldn't be as big a star as they are. First and foremost of course, I don't think he's a good actor

When he's asked to carry the third act the film falls off a cliff. There were literally half a dozen minor characters more interesting then Django in the film. I was really intregued by the Stephen\Candie relationship. Now there was a subversive and controversial movie that would have been really interesting..... it's a shame that Tarrantino was too busy playing with toys to notice

Corholio

I preferred Foxx way more than I would have preferred Smith. Remember Foxx was a slave, probably worn hard from being one, he's not gonna be full of charisma. Smith would have overblown it and taken you out of the film's context IMO, just like Tarantino's cameo did.

People mentioned the Candyland scenes, but Foxx wasn't meant to have a big role in dialogue etc as they couldnt let on that he knew the girl, that's why Waltz done all the talking etc. I definitely don't think Smith could have portrayed the revenge scenes as good.

brianregan09

Corholio wrote: »

I preferred Foxx way more than I would have preferred Smith. Remember Foxx was a slave, probably worn hard from being one, he's not gonna be full of charisma. Smith would have overblown it and taken you out of the film's context IMO, just like Tarantino's cameo did.

People mentioned the Candyland scenes, but Foxx wasn't meant to have a big role in dialogue etc as they couldnt let on that he knew the girl, that's why Waltz done all the talking etc. I definitely don't think Smith could have portrayed the revenge scenes as good.

THIS THIS the bits in candy land , He was suppose to be speak when spoken to and play the lowest of the low which is a black slaver and him berating the fellow black guys made this , I cannot imagine will smith been able for this role at all, Foxx was fantastic in my opinion, As above the guy was a slave he wouldn't have been the cheeriest of chaps anyway

God Smith ruined enough movies already for me, I don't think he'd have suiited this atal, and the anti hero everyone is looking for was Waltz's character a likeable murderer, You see this when he's teaching Foxx the ways of the trade when he's shooting the guy with his kid beside

Also of Tarantino's cameo lads it was meant to be a bit of a throwaway fun scene and i enjoyed it..and the soundtrack too is fantastic 9.5/10 for me anyway

Sad Professor

I still can't believe Smith turned this down to do, what? Men in Black 3? I wasn't happy with Fox's casting, but thought he was pretty decent in the end. Although I definitely think Smith could have done just as good a job if not better. He's an excellent actor even if he chooses to waste that talent on terrible films.

While the film had major third act problems, I don't think the solution was to not have a third act. We needed to see Django go it alone at the end. It's a shame Tarantino hadn't the visual flair to do a Leone-style showdown. Once all the big talkers are gone the film just falls flat. Fox's Django simply isn't compelling enough to carry the film by himself. I'm not sure if this is a problem with Fox or with Tarantino's script, but it is a problem.

As for Tarantino's cameo, I didn't think it was that bad. Nothing matches the awfulness of his appearance in Pulp Fiction IMO. At least his role here was relatively small. And I got a big laugh out of what happened to him.

Nervous Wreck

Sad Professor wrote: »

I still can't believe Smith turned this down to do, what? Men in Black 3? I wasn't happy with Fox's casting, but thought he was pretty decent in the end. Although I definitely think Smith could have done just as good a job if not better. He's an excellent actor even if he chooses to waste that talent on terrible films.

Agreed. Will Smith gets a hard time cos he does a fair few shit films. Fuck it, I would too if I could make that kinda dollar from them. But he's a pretty great actor, in fairness to him.

Sad Professor wrote: »

While the film had major third act problems, I don't think the solution was to not have a third act. We needed to see Django go it alone at the end. It's a shame Tarantino hadn't the visual flair to do a Leone-style showdown. Once all the big talkers are gone the film just falls flat. Fox's Django simply isn't compelling enough to carry the film by himself. I'm not sure if this is a problem with Fox or with Tarantino's script, but it is a problem.

I'm not a huge fan of Foxx but I think the blame on this probably does come down to Tarantino tbh. I reckon Foxx did the best he could with the finale. It just wasn't strong enough.


That said, this is Tarantino's best film in a long while.

FlashD

Finally caught this today.

Quite violent and bloody with some sickening scenes (The Mandingo fight and the dog ripping scene) were my intial impressions.

I think the film leans mostly towards a slavery theme, so this surprised me. I was expecting a full on 'western' with nods to slavery rather than the other way around.

Acting was top notch, the stand outs for me were DiCaprio, throughly menacing psycho and Waltz, very smooth and articulate.

Overall, another top notch flick from Tarantino. Repulsive characters who get what they deserve, sharp snappy dialogue, interesting, engaging and definately menacing at times with excellent shootouts.

FlashD

Yeah, I agree with some of the posts here, the last 10 minutes for me was a little disjointed especially the Tarantino cameo with the Oz accents. Maybe it was a nod to the Ozzie western genre, Ned Kelly and all that.

I also felt the film lost some energy once Waltz and DiCaprio were dispatched. Along with Fox, this trio carried the second half of the film IMO. The ultimate showdown should really have involved DiCaprio, I don't think the Fox / Samuel L showdown was as strong a finish.

WHIP IT!

Sad Professor wrote: »

As for Tarantino's cameo, I didn't think it was that bad. Nothing matches the awfulness of his appearance in Pulp Fiction IMO. At least his role here was relatively small. And I got a big laugh out of what happened to him.

Personally, 'The Bonnie Situation' is possibly my favourite part of Pulp Fiction. I think Tarantino's cameo is very good and the whole situation was very entertaining. In fact, I've never heard anyone describe it as 'awful' before.

nyarlothothep

For everyone getting so down on Quentin Tarantino's performance I think he was pretty good in My Best Friends Wedding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6MUbRZSg80

Tar.Aldarion

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Personally, 'The Bonnie Situation' is possibly my favourite part of Pulp Fiction. I think Tarantino's cameo is very good and the whole situation was very entertaining. In fact, I've never heard anyone describe it as 'awful' before.

Lower need, everybody seems to have liked it. I don't remember it too well but I seem to recall liking it

pixelburp

Corholio wrote: »

I preferred Foxx way more than I would have preferred Smith. Remember Foxx was a slave, probably worn hard from being one, he's not gonna be full of charisma. Smith would have overblown it and taken you out of the film's context IMO, just like Tarantino's cameo did.

People mentioned the Candyland scenes, but Foxx wasn't meant to have a big role in dialogue etc as they couldnt let on that he knew the girl, that's why Waltz done all the talking etc. I definitely don't think Smith could have portrayed the revenge scenes as good.

That would be fair enough if the film was playing it straight & keeping the tone relatively grounded; but given how splashy and full of caricatures the rest of the story was - with performances by the cast to match - the moment the focus shifted to Foxx it felt like there was a personality vacuum on-screen. I don't think he was even very good simply playing the taciturn slave, and he certainly conveyed no real sense of warmth or affection for his kidnapped love.

All of which is personal preference obviously, but I think if the films avatar of vengeance is so unlikeable and dull, it's hard to get behind the eventual revenge no matter how righteous it might have been.

That said, I actually wonder if Tarantino became so absorbed writing Schulz & Candie (and possibly Stephen too), he simply forgot to spend any time on his titular character in the first place; the glib way Waltzs character was dispatched - so horrendously rationalised & sudden - it felt like Tarantino realised he had relegated his own main character & hurriedly tried to correct things with an extra 20-30 minutes bolted on the end.

brianregan09

Sure he didn't get her back until the final act , Before that he had to hide his emotions for her at the dinner table I don't know I thought it was a great movie anyway for me, I'm not going to pick at it like some people in these boards threads do

Waltz was the star of the show for me by the way he was fantastic