Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained

it's not even close to a shit film. neither were the Kill Bills (at all) and anyone who even hints at the idea of Inglorious Basterds being anything less than a great film, well, that's a lost cause. I'm not going to waste any breathe on this argument past this point though, just want my position to be known. by the way, these are indie films disguised as big budget entertainment, but you could be forgiven for thinking they're popcorn films.

i actually really like IB

which is probably why this new one disappointed me so

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:07 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i actually really like IB

 

which is probably why this new one disappointed me so

same IG is one of his best and has some of his finest scenes.

and in regards to "indie" films well I rather enjoyed Death Proof, at least more so than most it seems, so I have no problem with low-budget aesthetics necessarily, but Death Proof due to its context/story was an indie film, Django was wannabe indie but falls somewhere in the middle, which I found confusing and dull.

I still maintain that his self-indulgent Australian accent scene ruins the movie.

  On 1/22/2013 at 4:59 AM, vamos scorcho said:

it's not even close to a shit film. neither were the Kill Bills (at all) and anyone who even hints at the idea of Inglorious Basterds being anything less than a great film, well, that's a lost cause. I'm not going to waste any breathe on this argument past this point though, just want my position to be known. by the way, these are indie films disguised as big budget entertainment, but you could be forgiven for thinking they're popcorn films.

a vamos post i completely agree with? now i've seen it all...

  On 1/21/2013 at 5:55 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

so the problem here is nobody knows whether the scene was an homage or historically inaccurate?

 

*smug*

lol, damnit.

  On 1/22/2013 at 7:01 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I still maintain that his self-indulgent Australian accent scene ruins the movie.

probably didn't help either coming off the heals of a sort of teased ending, then you realize the movie's still not over and he's going to go back and start shooting people in the same house all over again (astoundingly anti climactic 3rd act). but again these are all side problems with why the film didnt cohere for me. The main problem is it's lacking in an emotional core that carries through out the whole film. Even Kill Bill had this.

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:28 AM, compson said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:07 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i actually really like IB

 

which is probably why this new one disappointed me so

 

same IG is one of his best and has some of his finest scenes.

 

and in regards to "indie" films well I rather enjoyed Death Proof, at least more so than most it seems, so I have no problem with low-budget aesthetics necessarily, but Death Proof due to its context/story was an indie film, Django was wannabe indie but falls somewhere in the middle, which I found confusing and dull.

I don't think you know what indie means.

finally saw it aaaaaand it's ok. probably one of his lesser films. it's just pretty much IB but in the wild west. same plot turns and twists. it's kinda boring by this point as there's no suspense for the viewer. but it was well made, dialogues were funny and it never really dragged (asie from few splatter shootout scenes that went on for far too long). good stuff, but nothing really mindblowing. if it was my first tarantino i would shit my pants from excitement, i'll give him that.

  On 1/22/2013 at 11:43 AM, Obel said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:28 AM, compson said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:07 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i actually really like IB

 

which is probably why this new one disappointed me so

 

same IG is one of his best and has some of his finest scenes.

 

and in regards to "indie" films well I rather enjoyed Death Proof, at least more so than most it seems, so I have no problem with low-budget aesthetics necessarily, but Death Proof due to its context/story was an indie film, Django was wannabe indie but falls somewhere in the middle, which I found confusing and dull.

 

I don't think you know what indie means.

whats it mean?

How much would it influence your judgement of this film if you didn't read any reviews or know it was a Tarantino's film?

  On 1/22/2013 at 11:56 AM, compson said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 11:43 AM, Obel said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:28 AM, compson said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:07 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i actually really like IB

 

which is probably why this new one disappointed me so

 

same IG is one of his best and has some of his finest scenes.

 

and in regards to "indie" films well I rather enjoyed Death Proof, at least more so than most it seems, so I have no problem with low-budget aesthetics necessarily, but Death Proof due to its context/story was an indie film, Django was wannabe indie but falls somewhere in the middle, which I found confusing and dull.

 

I don't think you know what indie means.

 

whats it mean?

Um... well... independent. As in not backed by large production companies. Indie is not descriptive of a films style.

When Tarantino was a geek working in a video shop he was full of interesting ideas and Reservoir Dogs was a great story, even when you watch it back today and note the amateurishness of the acting and production, these negatives dont detract from the enjoyment of the story. Back then he didn't give a damn who he offended with his films.

Today Tarantino is a politically correct arse kisser pushing an alternative world where black women, women, jews, and then blacks dominate whitey. What's wrong with that? Nothing, plenty of films offer that type of message. The problem is that Tarantino wasn't originally like that. His first two films are racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, and whatever else will offend people. That was the real Tarantino, the genuine real deal movie fan who knows that what happens in virtual reality is not the same as what happens in real life.

What we have these days is a phony - faker. This Tarantino knows what his Hollywood bosses want him to make and he goes along with that agenda. He knows who pays for everything so he kisses their arses like a little bitch. The worst part is that as his films become more and more wet and PC and hollywood liberal friendly then his ego has expanded to resemble an exploding Zeppelin. He never misses a chance to insert his smell in the middle of a plot that has nothing to do with him. Weird handwriting, ugly shitty cameos, hollywood arsekisser story premises, long publicity about which infamous has been actor is going to be acting out his clunky LUGGING blocked-toilet dialogue.

I would give the guy some kudos for the film sets, costumes, music, and interesting story elements. But he didn't make any of it himself and he only got it by ass kissing hollywood.

Also I have heard good rumours from good sources that some people associated with Tarantino are pedos so it's pretty sad to watch people fall for media hype and support this crook's thieving anti-art anti-beauty anti-truth used toilet paper films

yeeeesh' just got to see it yesterday...not so good, Al.

definitely not 'bad' but i think it's 'extremely average'

walked in, and from the first sight of the credits + music, was expecting this great trashy exploitation/spaghetti western mash up, but it became neither, instead it sort of just floated around the place, unsure of what it wanted to be. With Kill Bill he embraced the kung-fu/Japanese aesthetic and just ran with it - here it feels he never fulfilled any aesthetic fully, just dashes here and there...

It's the first Tarantino film which didn't really feel all that Tarantino.

lol chunky, often I think you're a paranoid conspiracy theory nut, but that was pretty much right on the money.

Thing I find funny/sad about the film is what I mentioned in my earlier post - that young Tarantino managed to write engaging, unexpected character arcs for the two black guys in Pulp Fiction - Jules going from cold-blooded killer to born-again pacifist, Marcellus Wallace going from indestructible kingpin to sodomized victim to reluctant ally of the guy he was trying to whack - but he couldn't come up with anything at all for Jamie Foxx in Django.

wtf alternative world blacks dominate whitey?

the hell are you on about?

  On 1/22/2013 at 3:09 PM, chunky said:

Also I have heard good rumours from good sources that some people associated with Tarantino are pedos

please........elaborate

he can't elaborate...he's "heard".

or maybe he's snuck in good with the Jews to fool them!! haha!!! gather all their secrets and expose their hidden agenda!!

  On 1/22/2013 at 9:08 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 7:01 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

I still maintain that his self-indulgent Australian accent scene ruins the movie.

 

probably didn't help either coming off the heals of a sort of teased ending, then you realize the movie's still not over and he's going to go back and start shooting people in the same house all over again (astoundingly anti climactic 3rd act). but again these are all side problems with why the film didnt cohere for me. The main problem is it's lacking in an emotional core that carries through out the whole film. Even Kill Bill had this.

I agree the scenes sort of felt loosely tied together, and some of the plot seemed weak and unnatural to me. I personally think Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds were both much better. I don't have a lot of gripes with either of those films.

The first 20 mins of IB is probably one of the best things I've ever seen. Not even kidding. Textures, dialogue, acting, tension. Absolutely gripping and so entertaining.

I was hoping for more stand-out scenes like that in Django, and whilst the Candie/Stephen dinner-table scene is excellent it wasn't quite the same.

Fuck, equally, the stand-off in the underground bar in IB. So enjoyable.

The only part I wasn't crazy about was the last 20 mins in the cinema. Felt like too much of a caper movie, but meh.

  On 1/22/2013 at 2:33 PM, Obel said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 11:56 AM, compson said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 11:43 AM, Obel said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:28 AM, compson said:

  On 1/22/2013 at 5:07 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i actually really like IB

 

which is probably why this new one disappointed me so

 

same IG is one of his best and has some of his finest scenes.

 

and in regards to "indie" films well I rather enjoyed Death Proof, at least more so than most it seems, so I have no problem with low-budget aesthetics necessarily, but Death Proof due to its context/story was an indie film, Django was wannabe indie but falls somewhere in the middle, which I found confusing and dull.

 

I don't think you know what indie means.

 

whats it mean?

 

Um... well... independent. As in not backed by large production companies. Indie is not descriptive of a films style.

Independent films are lower budget... I don't get your comment. Death Proof was made with a independent film studio sized budget. Django was not. Therefore for me Death Proof actually felt like a grindhouse film while Django did not feel like a Black exploitation or low-budget Western. It was too candy coated.

I think if a indie film feels high budget and vice versa it's just a coincidence. It's a matter of dependence. If you have a billion to spend on a movie that you do in any way you fucking like it, it's gonna be indie imo.

This is confusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MI44SR6f-8

hey man, if you have a problem with a white guy acting black on black TV, maybe you have some racial issues that need to be figured out.

*sarcasm*

it might be the immense amounts of cocaine though.