Django Unchained

That's a solid point! That movie did fly by really fast!

Getting back on topic, here's my review of Django copied from my blog.

[SPOILER!]
"The D is silent, hillbilly..." Tarantino pulled off the mash up of past eras mixed with a contemporary style quite wonderfully. A perfect blend of advanced terminology/slang and personalities for the time. Dialogue heavy with gruesome action timed at the write points can sum up Tarantino's steeze of writing/directing and this one does not stray away from that. Some of the blaxploitation was shocking to see/hear, but Tarantino sprinkled just enough comedy to get away with it. DiCaprio(Calvin Candie) even makes a jab at the audience about how much racism they've used. Seeing Jonah Hill was interesting. It seemed to me like he wrote the entire scene with the bag heads arguing about their eye holes. Christoph Waltz(Dr. King Schultz) delivers another awesome performance. This movie earns its two hour and forty five minute time slot. Tarantino 'sticks to his guns'. Just when you think it's over, Dr. King jests, "sorry I couldn't resist." And the blood baths ensue. I look forward to the blu-ray release.

VERDICT: SEE IT ON THE BIG SCREEN/ADD IT TO YOUR COLLECTION

So, Tarantino decided to make a western movie, as he is a big fan of them. Not only that he decided to make one, he decided to make a very good one with a relatively typical spaghetti western story but, to put it mildly, not typical characters and locations. So Django Unchained takes place at the South of the USA (so-called Deep South) a few years before the Civil War and the main protagonists are German bounty hunter and a black slave who quickly becomes a black cowboy.

Django Unchained is more or less what the majority of the audience expected. While it is legitimate to criticize Tarantinos stylistic and filming constant throughout his career the fact is that he creates high-quality films that meets with mostly positive response among the audience. Also stylistic and filming repetitiveness is belaud characteristic of many other acclaimed filmmakers (the Coen brothers, Carpetner ...) so there is no reason to be harsh with Tarantino for that.Django Unchained is primarily entertainment, then a brutal display of the first half of the 19th century in USA, and ultimately the criticism of human morality. Often mentioned violence is pervasive and somewhat glorified, but no more than in average action film.

Acting is on extremely high level, which was also directly contributed by writing the script for specific actors. Thus, for instance, Dr. Schultz, Candie and Stephen were written directly for Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson, while Django was written with Will Smith in mind. Jamie Foxx is definitely the weakest among main cast, although far from being bad his acting is definitely forgetful while previously enumerated trio is far away from being forgetful. Christoph Waltz is simply brilliant in the role of Dr. Schultz, which deviates slightly from Hans Landa and although many will find problem of repetitiveness in that, that should be ignored due to the success of the character and Waltzs performance. DiCaprio is excellent in his first role as a villain. He was so into it that when he really accidentally hit a glass with his fist and despite sizable bleeding never went out of the character. Samuel L. Jackson is also excellent in the role peevish old man with plenty of swearing and yelling.

It looks like Tarantino wanted to have as much people as it was possible to participate in this movie, so we have a bunch of supporting characters, most of which was a cameo or almost a cameo role and most of them end up serving as cannon fodder. Even Franco Nero, the original Django, appears in the film and there were written roles for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Sacha Baron Cohen and Michael Kenneth Williams which were ultimately thrown out of the film as the trio couldn't participate in project.
The dialogues are wonderfully worked out, with many lines that will become cult. The disadvantage is the unnecessarily lengthiness of the film itself and many completely unnecessary scenes. Some of these unnecessary scenes that serve the purpose of comedy like the one with hoods are not the problem, but the vast majority of others are, specially in the last half of hour. Editing is also obvious worse than in previous Tarantino films which were edited by, now late, Sally Menke.
Soundtack is particularly interesting. Giuseppe Verdi, Ennio Morricone and James Brown/2Pac duet (which unlike Rick Ross is interesting musical experiment) as a music background in few almost connected scenes is really special experience.

Tarantino continues as usual, and while some will be happy with it, others will not, but the fact is that Django Unchained is instant cult film which in addition is well made and which characters will be quoted and scenes will be endlessly viewed.


9/10

^ Very good review, agreed with almost everything you said.

But I personally don't think that the film is longer than it should be. Like I said a few days ago in this thread, it didn't feel long at all to me. And I watched it again three days ago, and I enjoyed it a lot more than the first time I watched it, and again it didn't seem long at all. Basically, I wouldn't really remove anything.

While watching it for the second time, not only that I enjoyed it more and that it made me like the movie even more, but I noticed some more details and things that I missed during the first time I saw it. So I'd recommend to everybody to watch it more than once, because seeing it once isn't enough. And even if you don't love it the first time you see it, it will grow on you after you watch it for a second time, trust me.

In a scale of 1 to 10, I'd also give it a 9 without hesitation. That would be my final rating, regardless of how many times I watch it after this post. Two weeks ago I wasn't sure if Django, Inglourious Basterds or Jackie Brown was Tarantino's second best film after Pulp Fiction. But now I've made up my mind, now I think Django Unchained is his best work since Pulp Fiction, followed closely by his other two works that I mentioned.

It did for me as well until the third act. There's nothing wrong with a long film, but Tarantino seemed to either be extending it for the purpose of being a western epic (a bit cynical, but possible), or just stuck on an ending. I noticed several other good places to end the film, most of them better, but every character had to be ousted before the end or it wouldn't be a true revenge film. But I guess that's just Tarantino's style, I though it was a weakness in this, but I still enjoyed it a great deal.

__________________
Mubi

Awwwww..... Poo baby... You just made yourself a target. ;3

-4 rep points because I gave you minus rep in one post, because I genuinely disagreed with your statement in that post? Seriously? You're a joke, you shouldn't even be allowed on a forum.

And guess what, you just made yourself a target too.

What part of "be more respectful" don't you understand?

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Seriously, go look at his Twitter profile (advertised on his 'profile' on this site). Obviously, you're dealing with a class act.

Edit for context: He literally just signed on to mine just to call me a 'fag' for no apparent reason... then I read a thread about the movie I just finished re-watching (1channel.ch yo!) and he's causing trouble in here... no surprise.

__________________
~ I am tired of ze same old faces! Ze same old things!

I am not going to anyone's "twiter profile". Christ, twitter is becoming worse than cell phones. I didn't think that was even possible.



Anyway, liked the movie quite a bit. Don't think its as good as Inglorious, but its pretty damn good. As with most Tarantino flicks it will probably get better with a few more viewings. He just packs so much stuff into his flicks.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Only -4? I got -13 last night plus a homophobic profile comment.

__________________

It was an amazing movie.And also had some of the best comedy sequneces i've ever seen.The part with the hoods and Jonah Hill was hillarious!

It looks like we got us a fight going on in here that's a good bit of fun.

__________________
Let's talk some jive.

The fight is over. Dastardly's been banned.

Django was great and will probably be even better upon repeated viewings.

Django's cast is so hostile lol

Your loss. Reading it is indeed a "good bit of fun."

My original review is on my blog at Django Unchained.

The interesting part about it is the keyword links that are being used to find it. Most reference the "mysterious woman red bandanna".

Anyway, here's my review:

I’m not at all sure who Quentin Tarantino targets his movies to but, with growing regularity, I’m clearly not one of his targets. His latest effort, Django Unchained, had its release delayed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. After seeing it, I now understand why. I just wish it had been delayed to make it a better movie.

The film stars Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz as a freed slave (Django) and the German bounty hunter (Dr. King Schultz) who gives him his freedom in return for help identifying a wanted group of brothers.

The deeper story takes root when Django decides to go after his slave wife and gets help from King.

The movie clocks in at nearly 3 very long hours. This isn’t a new problem for Tarantino films but sometimes his films just feel long. This one is long and feels doubly so.

I get the sense that Tarantino loves the process of making films and he’s clearly a film nut. The problem is that his enthusiasm and depth result in efforts that leave the average viewer lost in the wake.

In this case we have a movie that’s entirely disjointed. It is, at times, a wonder to watch while, at other times, is either entirely un-watchable or simply ridiculous. When it’s good, it’s fantastic. The dialog, visuals and ambiance give us moments of pure cinematic beauty if only fleetingly.
Waltz is, in my view, the star of the show. His work here once again underscores what an amazing talent he wields. We buy everything he’s selling and we long for more.

Foxx is good but he’s overshadowed by Waltz.

We also have a bevy of other key roles played by Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson and Don Johnson in addition to many minor roles played by some big names. All do a fine job.

Like most Tarantino films this one is violent and graphic. However, this one goes beyond everything he’s done previously. Whoever provided the fake blood must have made a fortune. Unfortunately, instead of his using it artistically (as he’s done before) here it’s just crazily gratuitous. If it’s supposed to be a joke, the joke wears off almost immediately.

Then there’s other Tarantino-trademark problems. There’s one-off “jokes” that never repeat and, on their own, aren’t interesting. Why, for example, is the text for Mississippi screen-high and scrolled while no other similar description is? What artsy element or inside joke am I missing here?

We get character quirks that go entirely unexplained, like a mystery woman who covers her face with a red bandana (except her eyes) in every scene. Why? We never find out.

There’s characters who look exactly like other characters and, in one case, actor James Remar plays two entirely different, supposedly unrelated roles. However, both clearly look the same and it’s distracting. Why? Again, we never find out.

The soundtrack was noteworthy and, here and there, compliments some wonderful shots but it’s not enough to save the film.

Don't take that as a personal attack or anything, but I just really feel that people are trying to criticise the film without really explaining why it's more and only pointing out what they think are superfluous scenes that make the picture on the whole disjointed.

__________________