I'll try keep the spoilers out of this - in case you haven't seen it.

I'm going to start by stating that this film IMO doesn't live up to the 'spaghetti western' that I kept hearing about. I was really excited to see it on the hype alone and QT knows his westerns...

1) The acting was outstanding, but you can expect that from any QT film. Foxx, DiCaprio and Waltz performances make this film a repeat occasion.

2) The cinematography was stellar as well. Every scene has its own, unique tone and feel. There were some scenes that were some of the most breathtaking I've seen. What really bothered me, is that spaghetti westerns are known for bringing front and center the characters, settings and props that don't have much significance to it's plot. I may have to see it again, but it wasn't overtly present at all.

3) The costumes and make up were awesome. The colors were vibrant, scars looked grumsome and some of the props were intense and disturbing. Some of it felt like Rainer Werner Fassibinder.

4) The dialogue was on par with the rest of QT. There was one stand out scene that had me twisted - it was brillantly paced IMO. If you hadn't heard already, this film blasts the n-bomb about 100 times or more. By the end of the film, it really didn't phase me and I think that was the problem. Sometimes it was approriate for the context of the dialogue, but as it progressed - I could feel myself being desensitized to the rest of the dialogue. I understand there has to be an authenticity about it, but felt it took away from it completely.

5) The score was amazing and unexpected, but again - it wasn't in line with what I hoped for.

6) Which brings me to the plot. I like the concept, but it didn't deliver the goods. Foxx's character Django really never grew into his character. As a black protagonist, I was expecting him to come into his own. He was a strong character, don't get me wrong. I guess he never really felt 'Unchained'. Confusingly, it was all about moving from A to B. The end was epic, but wasn't giving a proper bulid up.

I'm going to give it a B-, but I'll probably watch it again and see 1,000,000 things I missed the first time around. Damn you QT!

Johnny, B- is a fair grade, as is your analysis. I saw it tonight. I am a Tarintino fan,but this movie is extremely overrated. Maybe even shockingly so.

I have a feeling people are liking this largely because they know it's a Tarintino.

No one expects it to be intellectually stimulating or thought provoking, and it's not remotely so. No one should expect that this movie will make any serious attempt to put the audience in the period, and it doesn't. Well, to people who have little sense of history and think Star Wars really did take place a a galaxy far away and a long time ago, maybe this is history for them.

All of that is fine if the movie entertains, it the characters intrigue. It entertains, but not nearly enough for a movie like this. The characters occasionally intrigue, but more often just seem ridiculous.

The biggest problem is that the story is emotionally flat. Oh, sure, if you whip an innocent slave then shoot a heartless slave master, yeah, that gets a reaction. But anyone can do that. Heck, you can get a reaction showing knee surgery on Discovery Channel. That looks rough,man.

But there is little reason to really care for these characters. Any of them.

There are some clever scenes, a few memorable lines of dialogue. But when Quinton calls me and asks for my advice, this is what I will say:

"Change it up, man. You need a new schtick. No more Leone homages. No more Kill Bill in different settings. God, if you have to repeat yourself go back to Reservoir Dogs. Like a brilliant pop musician, it's time to reinvent yourself."

The critics seem to love this. You will never convince me that that is anything but the notion that it's not cool to diss Quenton. That's where you want to be, as a director, where popular and critical culture has already predetermined that anything you do is cool, and everyone is willing to look past your mistakes.

Yeah, this movie is pretty awesome, Tarantino's best since pulp, pretty much flawless, and at nearly 3 hrs it moved pretty quick. It also had some great gore and some really fun shootouts. Dicaprio is a riot in this, looks like he was having a blast being a bad guy, and Waltz was great as usual,and Jamie Fox had a coolness to him. It's a great audience movie as well, people were laughing and cheering throughout.  Great flick by a great filmaker, movies really don't get better than this. Of course people are gonna bitch and moan about this movie, people like to trash tarantino to make themselves feel hip, but the masses I can tell will get a kick out of it.

See, I'm not sure about the people like to bash Tarantino thing. I read multiple reviews by the main film critics, they were generally very positive.

And I myself like Tarantino movies. I loved Inglorious, Pulp, Reservoir, even Jackie Brown.

So I wanted to like this and expected to. I was surprised that I didn't, at how silly it often was. And how flat, especially the first hour.

So idea that people want to feel hip by trashing this...no, more the other way. It's hip to love Tarintino. He's like Letterman used to be. You had to laugh even on nights he wasn't funny. To like Leno was to be one of the cool people.

This film is not going to stand the test of time. Inglorious is a film you can watch over and over, especially that long opening scene. Pulp and Reservoir were filled with brilliant dialogue. In fact even that vampire one with Clooney was top notch dialogue.

Django has its moments, but often the dialogue sounded first draft or something. It just didn't feel real or even consistent.

Years from now, no one will remember this film. It won't be one of the classic Tarantino's you can't help stopping on anytime you are surfing.

Waiting for this one on Redbox too

Someone review Jack Reacher already

Have not seen the film yet, but I read the script. Critics are calling this Tarantino's most violent film ever?

Did not get that at all from the script. Few scenes will ever disturb me more than that poor mutilated cop in Reservoir Dogs. And the gratuitous carnage in Kill Bill? -- which I loved.

James

It's violent because the way the killings take place, and there are a ton of killings. Each bullet results in an explosion of blood. It's like Gallagher and his watermelons.

there's a lot of blood... but i hardly notice it most of the time

film violence just doesnt phase me anymore.

Nearly as bloody as Kill Bill, and nearly as good as Inglourious.  I enjoyed the hell out of it.  Despite its shortcomings and gaping plot hole, Tarantino knows how to make a satisfying film.

I will agree, there was plenty wrong with the film.
But, it was a damn good time.
For being nearly 3 hours, it went quick.

The acting was superb. Sam Jackson was a character that you loved to hate.
I liked the buddy cop aspect of the movie.

Yes, the dialogue wasn't great. But it was still pretty good. It doesn't hold a candle to movies like Pulp Fiction, of course.

Overall, I loved the movie.
I wouldn't call it a masterpiece by any means. But I would definitely recommend it. Especailly, if you're a QT fan.

Quoted from oJOHNNYoNUTSo As a black protagonist, I was expecting him to come into his own. He was a strong character, don't get me wrong. I guess he never really felt 'Unchained'.

As my own personal black protagonist, I wonder when I'll come into my own!

I'm more or less in line with Steex. Lots wrong with it, can't really say I was bothered by that. Had to love that dialogue, had to love sitting in the theatre and feel like I was seeing a real honest-to-goodness cinematic MOVIE, and had to love the good ol'-fashioned ass-whuppings being liberally handed out. Funny, thrilling, and discomforting. The guy behind me could barely stand some of the violence, and most of the theatre didn't know what to do with themselves during the 'Mandingo fight.' Awesome stuff.

And, y'know. Just love to see that brother in the saddle. Top 3 of the year, for me

P.S. Bet poor ol' Spike Lee ain't too happy with it. Ha ha ha.

I really liked this movie, though not as much as the Kill Bills and Inglourious.  The story had its own leisurely pace, and as typical with Tarantino, snubbed its nose at standard structure.  I suppose Django didn't have the same scope and operatic grandeur of Kill Bill and Basterds, but I still found it relentlessly entertaining.  Sam Jackson stole the show, I was cracking up at damn near every line of his.

Django's climax had a somewhat similar feel to Basterd's but didn't pack the same emotional wallop for me.  It was a fitting, though unsurprising ending.  Overall, a great ride and, unlike movies of similar length like Dark Knight, I never checked my watch once.  

Damn, this movie's a hoot. Bullshit story really, waaaaaaaay over the top splatter action but, fuck me, what a ride. DiCaprio is awesome, Waltz is awesome, Samuel is awesome, Foxx is...alright I guess but he had to do a lot with a lot less.

I had my doubts about QT in the past, Jackie Brown was a snooze fest, the Kill Bills were just whack and fucking Death Proof fucking sucked elephant semen. But he redeemed himself with Inglorious Basterds and he's definitely back on top again with Django.

Two thumbs up.

What the fuck did they put in those bullets back in the day? C4? Damn!

Jesus sniper, did you just snort a line of coke before writing that review? haha

However, I couldnt agree more. This might be the year's best for me. However I'm a bit biased considering I saw this on my birthday and was drinking a six pack of stouts in the theaters. Made for an awesome experience.

Concerning the bullets, I loved how they played up the splatter. However those pellets back then packed quite a wallop. They were inaccurate as s hit but if it struck you, you were officially f ucked.

I loved the missle sounds the bullets made right before the splat in the second to last shootout. It's also funny this moivie is only 14A here in canada, Inglourious was 18A and had about the 10th of the violence

I loved how the kept hitting that same poor dude during the first shootout at Candy Land.

Quoted from albinopenguin Concerning the bullets, I loved how they played up the splatter. However those pellets back then packed quite a wallop. They were inaccurate as s hit but if it struck you, you were officially f ucked.

Would I be correct in saying Django Unchained was set in 1858? In that case, the single action revolver of that era was the Colt Model 1851, a .36 calibre paper and ball affair. As the round is solid, unlike modern hollowpoint, jacketed and ballastic tips, it passes through flesh rather than splattering it. Muzzle velocity with black powder is also lower.

But, we'll forgive QT this error in the name of effects . . .

Pretty sure Django uses .44 & .45 revolvers with cartridges, all from the post 1871 era.

I thought any sniper worth their salt would know their guns . . .

Eoin

The story is ante-bellum, so probably 1858 or around that. Certainly no later.

The standard for reality for QT is obviously not high. Unless you think Hitler really did die in a movie theater in Paris.

Near the end of Django, when the sister is blown away, she moves in a direction substantially different from where the bullet should have carried her. But the audience loved that scene.

White shock at black men on horses is a complete fiction. Complete. Black children grew up on plantations and they actually played with the white children. Both rode horses which were readily available.

I don't want to paint a false picture: slavery was brutal generally, and most suffered horribly.

But black men not only rode horses, they had racing competitions among themselves.

Was a black man on a horse a risk for flight? Well, was a small white family living surrounded by slaves at risk for being slaughtered? It would seem so, but it seldom happened.

These institutions evolved over 300 years. They were complicated and difficult for us to understand.

While Django is not realistic, those things did not bother me about the film. They were entertaining.

Where the film was weak for me mostly was that I really didn't care what happened. I think the only scenes that drew emotion out of me were the ones where Django's wife suffered, or struggled with controlling her fear.

The acting was excellent. No problem with that.

The story seems unfocused. What was the point? What was QT trying to say?

Look at the scene where Dicaprio talks about the brains of Africans, how they are by nature submissive. What was the point of that? It almost felt like QT thinks that to be the case. I mean I think it's interesting to discuss why blacks did not revolt. But better to explore some of the social and psychological reasons for that, and even better to demonstrate that with a scene.

Dicaprio also is fascinated by exceptionally bright black people. But he believes it is an extreme exception. And one senses QT believes this. Otherwise what is the point of repeatedly bringing it up?

It's certainly a misanthropic view of humanity. All white people are evil(except the German, perhaps QT compensating for Inglorious), and most black people are submissive and stupid. Man, what a view of the world.

Kevin,

Say it ain't so bro!? I thought Hitler was killed in that cinema? I can't comment on the film, as it isn't out here yet. Just being playfully pedantic on the nature of the blood spatter discussed from the so called bullets from that era.

Eoin, the blood was almost comical. It got a lot of audience reaction. It was like Gallagher with his exploding melons. The white living room of the mansion was painted red, literally.

Just saw this, this morning.  I enjoyed it...very much, actually.

Is it a classic?  No, probably not.  Is it a great movie?  Not really.  Is it a great story/plot?  Definitely not.  Are there great characters with deep arcs?  Hell no.

But, it works exactly the way QT wanted it to...and that's always what counts.

You know...it's quite amazing how QT movies look and feel like only QT movies do.  There's a certain pace that always feels too slow, but always succeeds when it's all said and done.  The look is hard to explain, but you all know what I'm talking about, I'm sure.  There's other stuff as well...

...like...

Extensive use of SUPERS, many of which are far more than just a simple title.

Sub titles for dialogue.

Crazy amount of bit part characters who all shine in their brief appearances (usually played by very recognizable faces/actors).

An over the top bloody finale.

A plot that waffles here and there, knowing damn well where it's actually headed.

A musical score that, although usually very whacky, always impresses.

A bending of reality, be it history, or just common sense, that somehow doesn't matter and always works.

A tongue planted firmly in cheek, even when things are bloody and horrific, and a knowing wink wink, it's just a movie, folks.

I can't say I loved this flick, but I can definitely say I'll see it again...and again, and each time I see it, I know I'll appreciate it more.  And that's really what a movie should be all about.  The sad reality is that very few are these days.

QT seems to be one of a very few who really understand movies and what they are, as well as what they should be.  Everyone who preaches structure and the like about what a script and movie have to be should pay close attention here.  This is a movie that proves nothing is sacred and nothing has to be this way or that way.

Highly recommended for everyone who appreciates anything that has to do with movies and entertainment.

Saw it again last night.  I usually pick a movie apart on a second viewing but once again I just sat there and enjoyed it.  Say what we will about how simple and stupid parts of the film are, it's nearly three hours long and completely enjoyable.  What a great return to classic "trash" cinema: something meant to entertain and do almost nothing more.

Quoted from leitskev Look at the scene where Dicaprio talks about the brains of Africans, how they are by nature submissive. What was the point of that? It almost felt like QT thinks that to be the case. I mean I think it's interesting to discuss why blacks did not revolt. But better to explore some of the social and psychological reasons for that, and even better to demonstrate that with a scene. Dicaprio also is fascinated by exceptionally bright black people. But he believes it is an extreme exception. And one senses QT believes this. Otherwise what is the point of repeatedly bringing it up? It's certainly a misanthropic view of humanity. All white people are evil(except the German, perhaps QT compensating for Inglorious), and most black people are submissive and stupid. Man, what a view of the world.

It would be odd to me to argue that the villain of the film is expressing the director's beliefs. Aren't villains typically designed as the direct antithesis to what the film upholds as good? That's the point, isn't it, that they show incorrect views, incorrect beliefs, etc.?

Definitely agree that the film didn't need to have such universally unlikable white characters. Felt like a bit of a demonization of the South, really. Then again, it is a simple good guys/bad guys flick. Appropriately to the story, the majority of white characters were slave owners/enforcers, and it wasn't a film about the internal struggle faced by those in power.

I don't think the view of the world of blacks as submissive during slavery is unreasonable. Humans are submissive. Most of them don't stand up for themselves, even in extreme times. That seems pretty evident. I also don't think the movie suggested that blacks were stupid, although the black characters were largely uneducated (and they presumably would have been). If anyone really got it as far as being shown to be stupid, it was DiCaprio's Candie, who was embarrassed and shown for a fool repeatedly throughout the film. That's how I read it, anyway.

I'm talking specifically about the dialogue, Chris. Yes, it's the bad guy who delivers it, and that's what QT would reply...with a glimmer of mischief in his eye.

As I said, to explore why slaves did not revolt, and developed a submissive acceptance, is one thing. But why put a skull on the table and talk about a phrenological trait of the brain? If that was to emphasize the "badness" of the bad guy, I'm not sure it came off that way.

And the Dicaprio character says several times that blacks are capable of intelligence..."maybe one in ten thousand". Again, it's the bad guy saying this, but could a movie be made in which the good guy said that?

A more serious film maker(and before everyone get's their panties in a bunch, I love QT films) would have explored, at least a little, the psychology behind such submissive behavior. I realize the goal is fun entertainment, but once you go SO far out of the way to bring up these topics, as Django does, you are obligated to at least try to take a deeper look at them. Otherwise just leave them alone in the first place.

Hmm, that makes sense. I took the phrenology bit as a way of poking fun at racism -- a reminder of the sorts of moronic arguments upon which racist sentiments are predicated. I guess what I mean is that I didn't see it as bringing up a topic, per se, because the idea of phrenology and the idea that differences in intelligence might be inherently related to skin pigment are both so ludicrously stupid. To me, taking things to such an extreme specifically restated the film's intention not to analyze the human condition in a meaningful way.

So, why put a skull on the table and talk about phrenology? Because it makes the bad guy and his views look stupid and bad. And he was, and they are.

Why have the bad guy believe in an inherent relationship between "intelligence" and ethnicity? Same reason. He's a bad guy, and the things he does are stupid and bad. That's the way I took it, anyway.

I will say this: I watched it in a packed house. All white people from what I could see, and I live in an area with a large minority population. And the audience laughed and giggled EVERY time a black character said nigger. Every time. It was a little unnerving.

Have you ever read the script for Inglorious? The anti-semitic dialogue in that opening with the Nazi is much harsher in the script than what they used. It was a little too much. As though the writer was very familiar with the whole vein of thought.

Just saying. And I loved Inglorious. I kind of liked Django, I just think it's a bit overrated. And I'm a little suspicious of the real message. Carry on!

I saw the movie in a theater that was probably 50/50 white and black.  Pretty much every one laughed at Stephen's(Jackson's) creative use of the word.  Especially the Black Hercules...N****les.  

I certainly don't think QT believes any of the phrenology stuff.  But from what I understand, that was a somewhat respected pseudoscience back then.  Someone like Calvin Candie would truly believe it.  And putting that skull on the table is a great visual distraction as Candie goes on his expositional scientific explanation regarding the three dimples.

Great movie, but it didn't reach the heights of Inglourious.  Thinking back to the plot now, I have to wonder why Schultz and Django had to use this Mandingo ruse instead of just purchasing Broomhilda outright.  

Quoted from leitskev I will say this: I watched it in a packed house. All white people from what I could see, and I live in an area with a large minority population. And the audience laughed and giggled EVERY time a black character said nigger. Every time. It was a little unnerving. Have you ever read the script for Inglorious? The anti-semitic dialogue in that opening with the Nazi is much harsher in the script than what they used. It was a little too much. As though the writer was very familiar with the whole vein of thought.

Fair enough. That's definitely unsettling. For my part, my mostly-white audience seemed fairly bruised -- I think? -- by the harsh racism in the film (although everyone definitely laughed at "the black Hercules").

Tarantino seems to come under pretty constant fire about this stuff, too. I recall people accused him of casting himself as Jimmy in Pulp Fiction just so he could talk to a strong black character like Jules the way Jimmy does, and say 'nigger' to him, without repercussions. And of course good ol' Spike Lee never lets up.

Personally, maybe this is simple-minded, but I always just think -- the guy's consistently making films with strong, original, engaging protagonists who are black and/or female, in a time when Obama's birth certificate and Hillary Clinton's cleavage are apparently news-worthy.  Why's he always the one getting this kinda flak? Ah well. Anyway.

You guys are unbelievable!  Seriously.

Why do peeps have to try and read so much into films?  I honestly don't get it.

Whether or not that's the way QT is has nothing to do with this or any other movie, does it?

I'll throw this out for the fun of it and see what you guys have to say about it.

The scene with the skull - QT likes to have a few what the fuck scenes in his movies - scenes that start and you have no clue where it's going to go.  You think it's possible that this long winded diatribe from Candie is simply meant to scare us into thinking he's actually going to bash her brains out with that hammer?

This was actually one of only a few times where I considered something really whacky may just occur.

Just saying...

Quoted from Dreamscale The scene with the skull - QT likes to have a few what the fuck scenes in his movies - scenes that start and you have no clue where it's going to go.  You think it's possible that this long winded diatribe from Candie is simply meant to scare us into thinking he's actually going to bash her brains out with that hammer? This was actually one of only a few times where I considered something really whacky may just occur. Just saying...

Yeah, I'm sure that was also one of the intentions of that scene, wondering if Candie was going to kill not only Broomhilda but also Schultz and Django.  But, it turns out business always comes first for Candie.  One interesting note about the scene where Candie smashes his glass down on the table...turns out that was real blood on Dicaprio's hand.  He gashed it wide open on the broken glass and just kept on with the scene while Jamie Foxx and Tarantino were freaking out off camera.

Quoted from Ryan1 One interesting note about the scene where Candie smashes his glass down on the table...turns out that was real blood on Dicaprio's hand.  He gashed it wide open on the broken glass and just kept on with the scene while Jamie Foxx and Tarantino were freaking out off camera.

Yeah, I read about that.  The really funny...or scary thing, is that it was actually DiCaprio's real blood smeared all over Hilde's face.

Love it!!

No Magic Johnson rule on the set, I guess.

Wouldn't there be some moral/legal problems in DiCaprio smearing blood all over Hilde's face, without permission or prior knowledge?  I mean, that's pretty weird and dangerous.

DiCaprio was arrested and is still in an unknown jail somewhere.

Tarantino was sued by Kerry Washington.  She won and received $45 Million plus the right to star in every single QT movie from here to the end of the world.

Quoted from Dreamscale DiCaprio was arrested and is still in an unknown jail somewhere. Tarantino was sued by Kerry Washington.  She won and received $45 Million plus the right to star in every single QT movie from here to the end of the world.

I woulda asked for his cocaine stash and shrine to Uma Thurman's feet, but to each their own.

Quoted from Gage I woulda asked for his cocaine stash and shrine to Uma Thurman's feet, but to each their own.

Not a Tarantino fan. Basterds wasn't to my liking...

But Django Unchained was great, it had its problems but the good far outweighed the bad. That skull scene was done amazingly well. Some great characters here.

I doubt people will forget about this in the next few years, it's one of QT's best IMO.

Will give a review at a later point, but if people seriously think Tarantino is a racist and using this film to channel an ironic, inverted message of racism, I'm really at a loss for words. It's plain that this film is designed to entertain but also challenge people - it's not "Birth of a Nation" redux.

page 34 in my draft

Spencer Bennett(with his Winchester), his SONS and his OVERSEERS, and some HOUSE NIGGERS, come around like a angry mob.

Why not say 'house slaves' since this is an action line description, not dialogue? This film IS designed to entertain, but anyone who thinks this film is designed to challenge people is inventing meaning where there clearly is none.

i really liked this movie... i find it to be right on par with Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds.

does it top Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction? i dont think so
is it better than Jackie Brown and Death Proof? definetly

and for once....i thought Dreamscales take on the film and his review of it was spot on.

Quoted from leitskev page 34 in my draft Spencer Bennett(with his Winchester), his SONS and his OVERSEERS, and some HOUSE NIGGERS, come around like a angry mob.

You don't think that he may have just missed that in the heat of writing all of that in dialogue for so long? I don't think QT is a racist. I do think he loves the shock value of that word and likes to play upon it. I'm sure plenty of white people were looking around the theater whilst watching this film.

James

I don't think a QT draft of a script gets out into the public before being read by quite a few others. And I am very sure that if you or I had put that in our script people would raise a ruckus. Why should QT get a pass?

I see no problem with using the word for its shock value. But from the number of times it is used here it is a crystal clear...crystal...that the word is being exploited. It aroused constant reaction in the theater I was in.

I am not going to throw the word racist out there. It's a loaded word that gets thrown around too often.

QT's work is generally founded on an exploitation of violence. It's entertaining, clever, and with unmatched quality of dialogue.

Now that exploitation has been extended to race. Because we like QT and love his work, he gets a pass. But it is what it is.

Quoted from leitskev It aroused constant reaction in the theater I was in.

My point exactly. I think the whole cast was in on this.



I still think it's a brilliantly written flick, but QT wanted white people squirming in their seats.

James

No one was squirming where I was. They were laughing.

I was in a theater jam packed with blacks (and a handful of whites).  No one looked around, no one squirmed, no one groaned.  Everyone laughed hysterically - especially when

*SPOILER*

Stephen was about to get killed and delivered the best line in the move:  O dear, Lord, please give me the strength to kill this N***a.

*SPOILER*

I think it’s stupid that people get mad over the fact that QT uses the “N word.”  What’s the big deal?  It’s realistic.  Do you know how many “thugs” or “gangstas” use that word on a daily basis?  C’mon now.  Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown - black characters that you would find just about in any gangster type city - talk like that all the time.  

Not that this justifies his language, but QT grew up in a very urban neighborhood. Furthermore, his mom supposedly dated Wilt Chamberlain...

http://www.yardbarker.com/nba/.....chamberlain/12582808

Now I'm not giving QT a get out of jail free card, but I've filed this away as evidence that he isn't racist.

I thought the movie was incredible, definitely his most complete film since Pulp. Christoph Waltz is climbing my favorite actors list, because goddamn he can ACT. DiCaprio is fantastic, as always, and Foxx did really well. The story may not have been incredibly strong, but it sure as hell was entertaining. QT is in prime form again between Inglourious Basterds and this. Definitely a must see for any and all film lovers.

Quoted from leitskev No one was squirming where I was. They were laughing.

Same here. Caught this last night.
I was braced for some racism vibe.
But it was all in the name of entertainment, so I wasn't bothered.

Here's REALLY why the slavery/n-word dealy didn't get to me.
Because the slaves in Quentin's flick feel like HUMANS to me.
Much more so than all the white characters, save for Dr. Schultz.

Even the slave extras are EMOTING in every single shot.
They're not portrayed as inherently dumb, ignorant sure.

Django Unchained put a human face on a social blight accepted as standard then.
Besides all the n-words getting tossed around wouldn't phase me...
I've lived in Miami!
Everyone talks like that! Even white folks. :O

E.D.

Finally sat down with this Oscar nominee last night.
And boy, I wasn't disappointed, at all.

This felt like one of QT's most complete narratives.
And despite a "double ending" feel for a bit, it all pays off beautifully.

I was prepared for a sub-standard performance from Foxx...
And was pleasantly surprised at how well he quietly carried the film.
When it's time for him to shine in the the third act... Django BLAZES the screen!

As for Quentin's cameo this go around...
It was the best eye roll inducing cameo that led to a mega payoff. Nuff said.

Fastest two hour and forty-five minute movie I've ever seen!
Leo chewed up the scenery and he's my fave kind of villain.
Candie's a passionate monster that takes pleasure in his wanton ways.
And a seemingly asexual soul that relishes in the details of CandieLand.
Calvin's more moved by the viciousness of men's souls than getting his rock off.
I dig it. Lots.

QT has worked his magic on me again.
And I look forward to more viewings to pick up on all his easter egg mojo.

Django, Zero Dark Thirty & Silver Linings Playbook are the best Oscar bait so far!

E.D.

Hey guys,

I watched Django a couple of days ago and thought it was great.

I haven't read all the above comments so i hope i'm not repeating anything that has already been said, though 2 things I can comment on are :-

The scene where Django is taken in the cage to be a slave at the mining camp, saw 3 men (one was tarantino i believe) all with Australian accents. This just felt out of place and I don't know why it was done that way. The Aussie accents just made it stand out like a sore thumb.

Secondly i felt even though the blood scenes where pretty graphic, I felt some of the shots did seem unrealistic and a bit overdone. Not complaining at the blood splatter etc It just made a few parts seem unprofessional.

Did love the storyline and will watch it again.

Alex

Quoted from Alex_212 The scene where Django is taken in the cage to be a slave at the mining camp, saw 3 men (one was tarantino i believe) all with Australian accents. This just felt out of place and I don't know why it was done that way. The Aussie accents just made it stand out like a sore thumb.

One of them was John Jarrett of Wolf Creek fame.  QT was definitely another. I can't remember the 3rd.

Basically just another cool example of filling minor roles with well known actors in cameos.

I enjoyed the movie overall (although I was disappointed). Among my biggest complaints is the dialogue; specifically when characters talk in circles and waste time. This is something that Tarantino started with Kill Bill Vol. 1 and needs to stop.

Second, he painted himself into a corner. There is no satisfying end to this movie. Everything after leaving Candieland the first time was a disaster on virually every level.

Quoted from Alex_212 The scene where Django is taken in the cage to be a slave at the mining camp, saw 3 men (one was tarantino i believe) all with Australian accents. This just felt out of place and I don't know why it was done that way. The Aussie accents just made it stand out like a sore thumb.

I think Tarantino dropped the ball big time with this scene. In the script, he not only explains why there're Australians in Mississippi, he ties it in with exactly why these guys would have incentive to take Django up on his offer. It's only a few lines. Tarantino would've barely spent a minute keeping them in there. In fact, the way the scene kicks off in the film feels rushed, like something's missing... because there was.

Quoted from Dreamscale One of them was John Jarrett of Wolf Creek fame.  QT was definitely another. I can't remember the 3rd.

Michael Parks.

Parks...right!  QT loves that guy.  And I do too!!!

The scene does feel rushed and like it's missing something. Interesting...

watching the interplay between DiCaprio and Sam Jackson alone is the worth the price of admission

both actors are on fire here.... and to watch two professionals spit and chew and sing Tarantino dialogue is a cinamatic treat.

Quoted from Dreamscale Parks...right!  QT loves that guy.  And I do too!!! The scene does feel rushed and like it's missing something. Interesting...

Yeah, Michael Parks is the "glue" that holds the Tarantinoverse together!
He plays the same Texas Ranger in Kill Bill & From Dusk Til Dawn.
QT calls him, "the greatest living actor."

E.D.

He's absolutely amazing in DTD.  That opening is one of the best in any movie, IMO.  Totally works in every way...and in many ways, made Clooney legit.

Quoted from Pale Yellow Waiting for this one on Redbox too Someone review Jack Reacher already

please let me know when JR reviews go up. thanks. bb

Reviews have been up for awhile on Jack Reacher.  Check 'em out!

Here's QT's interview after winning the original screenplay --

http://vimeo.com/60435361


The best part was around 5:30 as he starts acting out his uncut scenes from his screenplay. This is probably how he writes his famous dialogue. Every one should read their lines out loud to see if they work or not.

Django Unchained was definitely in my top three last year. Definitely worth the read.

Quoted from leitskev Look at the scene where Dicaprio talks about the brains of Africans, how they are by nature submissive. What was the point of that? It almost felt like QT thinks that to be the case.

Research my friend. and hes not talking about African Brains... he's talking about skull markings.

Tarantino is notoriously meticulous in his movie preperation.

Phrenology was actually a real (but failed) form of psychology where it was actually believed that bumps on different parts of the skull signified character traits - such as and not limited to submissiveness and creativity.

Google it.... fascinating stuff.

For what it's worth, everyone:

I watched a different Tarantino film at one point, trying to be all "filmish". Hated it. Couldn't get through it. Now, I can honestly say I don't remember the name of said film.

My feelings on Django are entirely different.

I would highly recommend this film. The actors really needed to carry it and they did.

Sandra