Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained

I wrote a pretty lengthy critique of it....overall I was pretty let-down....lemme find it and ill post it in here again.

Ultimately my opinion of Tarantino is that he is an incredibly passionate guy with extensive experience in understanding film, but without a good group of producers/editors/screenwriters around him he easily loses himself in over-indulgent schlock.

here we go, from the Films recently watched thread....I think this sums up my opinion nicely:

but yeah, the movie had some good parts, but overall it overindulged in the shit ive said in previous threads that really hurts Tarantino's movies....overly long "shock" scenes, ridiculous and weak editing...it lacked those incredibly intense dialogue scenes that made Inglorious Basterds my favorite QT film...there were some attempts to replicate that movie magic, but they failed....im convinced its far more due to the screenplay than the actors (all of whom were fantastic).

I really like Waltz as an actor, but I felt he came off waaaaaay too campy. He had a good character, but it was ruined/softened by cheap/corny dialogue....Its like QT just took Waltz's character from IB and put a cowboy hat on him, the same accent and the same ridiculous verbosity, etc. etc. Jamie Foxx hardly said a thing and just looked mean all the time, which I guess fit for the role, but it wasn't anything special. Dicaprio again did a phenomenal job, and he put in the best performance of the movie IMHO.

the thing I hate the most about QT that always makes me hesitant to say hes a great or even good director is his use of music montages. See my rant about Deathproof dialogue that explains it in more detail. Here he was even worse...constant unnecessary drawn out scenes to QT's favorite Morricone or obscure exploitation soundtrack he had on the victrola at the time. After watching this and his other films, Im willing to say that Pulp Fiction was lucky in that respect: every soundbite just happened to fall naturally into place. In this movie its often completely unnecessary, contributes absolutely nothing to the character's sensibilities or emphasizing tension/craziness on screen.

Worst example:

Why was it there? It contributed absolutely nothing in the way of storytelling, and if it was meant to get the viewer charged up emotionally the cue cut the song way too short to have any relevant emotional impact.

Fuck at this point Im willing to collaborate with Red Letter Media on a 60 minute special of how QT is a double-edged director.

I really wish he would tighten his shit up....because he really does have an eye for things, but at this point Im starting to think he's suffering from George Lucas syndrome: its increasingly obvious that his better movies were better because of the people involved on the periphery.

Django had some hilarious parts, some tension...but I tend to focus on all the bad simply because I want Tarantino to hit another one out of the park...but at some point i really have to sit back and be honest with myself that I overall didn't feel like it was worth a 10 dollar experience. I think (or at least I hope) this is why critics always sound bitchy, because it's much easier to remember what went wrong with a movie than what went right...especially if the wrongs outweigh the rights. I think Tarantino is capable of amazing filmmaking, but he needs to double down and "professionalize", so to speak....trust and rely more on the team working around him to help tighten up his mental imagery into something palatable to a viewing audience.

sorry...didn't mean to kill the good times.

on the bright side, it showed a bunch of white slaveowners being massacred! who wouldn't enjoy that?

A bit of the usual Tarantino shtick didn't take away from the dose of movie magic I was looking for. I see what you're saying though. A lot of people wonder what kind of movies he'd be making now if he had continued where he left off with Jackie Brown. Hopefully he won't retire before he tries something vastly different, but I do think he's totally peerless at what he does with this new one.

I really enjoyed Christoph Waltz's character, wonderful performance.

Saw this over the weekend and I really enjoyed it. I went in unsure because I thought Inglorious Basterds was a mess of a film that I didn't really care for, this one was great. Chris Waltz indeed stole the show again, and despite not being a big fan of Jamie Foxx I thought he did a good job as Django. The casting all around was pretty great. This movie was just a lot of fun, and I think the comedic elements thrown in really helped in some scenes to contrast the very serious nature of the subject matter and lighten it up a little (The raid scene with Jonah Hill's cameo was hilarious). Even the self-indulgent Tarantino-isms didn't seem as awkward as they could have been and didn't really distract from the film too much. The rap song that SRIV mentioned I think worked for that scene just because of how ridiculously over-the-top it was and I think that's what the song was emphasizing. All in all, despite the seriousness of tackling a subject like slavery and racism, Tarantino managed to make a fun and enjoyable movie out of it.

Beat the hell out of Basterds. My faith in Tarantino is returning.

did anyone comment on how bad QT is an actor and how much he sticks out yet?

read back and no-one did.

overall i really liked it and am not going to over analyse it as I know I could pick it apart and ruin it for myself.

the hiphop didnt really work for me.

I loved the homage to old films, such as the bad quick edit jumps (noway they were not intentional) and the huge blood splatters.

not sure why harry from dexter played two roles though.

can't imagine will smith in this. would be more wild wild west.

  Jimmy McMessageboard said:

I loved the homage to old films, such as the bad quick edit jumps (noway they were not intentional) and the huge blood splatters.

not sure why harry from dexter played two roles though?

  On 1/8/2013 at 6:20 PM, Jimmy McMessageboard said:

did anyone comment on how bad QT is an actor and how much he sticks out yet?

The only way I can read that scene is:

I thought the movie was Q.G., actually.

  On 1/8/2013 at 6:46 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  Jimmy McMessageboard said:

I loved the homage to old films, such as the bad quick edit jumps (noway they were not intentional) and the huge blood splatters.

not sure why harry from dexter played two roles though?

can't help but feel that's an easy out.

I don't see it, and I know im in the minority, but this movie really was one of his weakest films to date.

...Either way you feel that shit was obviously intentional and a homage to his favorite old school flick imperfections.

  On 1/9/2013 at 12:17 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

...Either way you feel that shit was obviously intentional and a homage to his favorite old school flick imperfections.

That much is true, I just felt as a cinemaphile that this "homage" was either badly coordinated/over-indulged, or it was an "homage" to shitty qualities of older film techniques that quite frankly, were rightly obliterated.

This critique or rather love of these certain QT aspects are a symptom of what I would call the "Hipster Effect", but that's a whole other story, and Im a bit too tipsy to fully 'splain what I mean.

Seriously, if someone knows how to film, I would absolutely be ready to make a 60 min "homage" to Redlettermedia and explain why QT has serious editing problems/negative effects on the viewing audience and the cinema overall.

PS DONT GET ME WRONG I ACTUALLY LIKE SOME OF HIS FILMS BEFORE ANYONE STOPS RUBBING THEIR QT BONER AND SMELLS BLOOD - THE DISSENSION IN THE RANKS>

even though I may not love QT's post jackie brown work i have a new found respect for him as a person based on his recent round of promotional interviews. He seems to prefer doing interviews with actual thoughtful interviewers like Charlie Rose and Howard Stern and a few others I'm forgetting now. He seems to still be very passionate about his own work and I love watching him talk at length about film in general (when he's not just name dropping)

Tarantino ruined the movie when he decided to attempt an Australian accent and be awkward on camera. The only other scene I didn't like was the one where the white supremacists talked about their pillow cases being crappy. Other than it was a pretty decent flick. I really enjoyed Samuel and Leonardo's interactions.

  On 1/9/2013 at 2:17 AM, Awepittance said:

even though I may not love QT's post jackie brown work i have a new found respect for him as a person based on his recent round of promotional interviews. He seems to prefer doing interviews with actual thoughtful interviewers like Charlie Rose and Howard Stern and a few others I'm forgetting now. He seems to still be very passionate about his own work and I love watching him talk at length about film in general (when he's not just name dropping)

wait, WHAT? Im a Howard Stern fan, but Howard Stern is NOT a thoughtful interviewer, sorry. He has not been a thoughtful interviewer, EVER. His questions usually consist of :

1) Who have you fucked

2) What was the fuck like of said fucked

3) Other questions concerning fucking

PS. Django still sucks

Saw this a few days ago, I thought it was awesome

Saw Django last night and really enjoyed it. It's definitely the goofiest movie he's ever made, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it.

Although, I did get the feeling that Tarantino wrote the movie just so he could say nigger a whole bunch.

  On 1/8/2013 at 7:13 AM, Jur said:

I really enjoyed Christoph Waltz's character, wonderful performance.

Totally. With the beard, I didn't realize who it was at first.

  On 1/8/2013 at 10:03 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 1/8/2013 at 6:46 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  Jimmy McMessageboard said:

I loved the homage to old films, such as the bad quick edit jumps (noway they were not intentional) and the huge blood splatters.
not sure why harry from dexter played two roles though?

 

can't help but feel that's an easy out.

 

I don't see it, and I know im in the minority, but this movie really was one of his weakest films to date.

It's obviously supposed to be just like old, campy 70s flicks. It's basically a blacksploitation film.

  On 1/8/2013 at 6:20 PM, Jimmy McMessageboard said:

did anyone comment on how bad QT is an actor and how much he sticks out yet?

what about jonah hill?

i should have said 'thoughtful interviews' not interviewers. Howard sterm is the ultimate provoker, he wants to cause trouble. I guess just the length of his interviews and with the right guests the interview can be highly entertaining and revealing. When it's a bad (stupid as dirt) guest like Mark Whalberg it's unbearable. I literally couldn't believe how stupid and boring Mark Whalberg is when he has an hour of time to talk about whatever he wants, it was ridiculous.

both times QT was on Stern I enjoyed the interview. Stern will always push a guest to their limit with outlandish questions regarding sex, but that is his sneaky way of making the guest feel more comfortable about answering other questions they usually wouldn't. And they don't realize until the interview is over what they just revealed.

  On 1/9/2013 at 10:06 PM, Braintree said:

Saw Django last night and really enjoyed it. It's definitely the goofiest movie he's ever made, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it.

 

Although, I did get the feeling that Tarantino wrote the movie just so he could say nigger a whole bunch.

 

 

  On 1/8/2013 at 7:13 AM, Jur said:

I really enjoyed Christoph Waltz's character, wonderful performance.

 

Totally. With the beard, I didn't realize who it was at first.

uh what? you crazeee

  On 1/9/2013 at 10:09 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 1/8/2013 at 6:20 PM, Jimmy McMessageboard said:

did anyone comment on how bad QT is an actor and how much he sticks out yet?

what about jonah hill?

yes his 2 seconds of screen time almost ruin....no he was fine and i liked the clan scene too

DVD quality screener is now out, same for the Hobbit

  On 1/9/2013 at 10:31 PM, Awepittance said:

i should have said 'thoughtful interviews' not interviewers. Howard sterm is the ultimate provoker, he wants to cause trouble. I guess just the length of his interviews and with the right guests the interview can be highly entertaining and revealing. When it's a bad (stupid as dirt) guest like Mark Whalberg it's unbearable. I literally couldn't believe how stupid and boring Mark Whalberg is when he has an hour of time to talk about whatever he wants, it was ridiculous.

fair enough.

Mark Wahlberg's interview showed me that horrible people can become amazingly rich and powerful on their ignorance alone.