Escape to the Movies: Django Unchained

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I admit, I'm not a big fan of Quentin Tarantino. I think he's a guy with good ideas that is in desperate need of an editor or something. He's like a reverse-George Lucas; someone who gets his way, but where George Lucas has awful dialogue and loads of unnecessary CGI, Quentin has too MUCH dialogue and loads of practical effects.

I've never seen a Tarantino movie I fully enjoyed, sadly. Many of his movies have some amazing scenes in there, but every movie is also saddled with long stretches of yawn-inducing, self-indulgent, "witty" dialogue that goes on far longer than should humanly be allowed. That, and I'm not exactly a fan of dialogue mostly consisting of profanities. Even the scenes I like are often directly lifted from other movies and genres.

I can assume Django Unchained is going to be the same thing. Some of my favorite moments in a movie, yet long stretches of self-indulgence, wonderful excuses for Tarantino to throw in ample uses of his favorite curse words, "intentionally" choppy and amateurish camera work to mimic outdated films, 30-40 minute scenes of people sitting down at a table talking about random crap that has no bearing on the plot, and sprinkles of really good action and humor just to keep you thinking the film is worth sitting through the dull parts.

I could be wrong. I haven't seen the film.... but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Some people love that style, but, well, just never did it for me. I find him overrated (not bad, just overrated), but I still might check it out to see if this is the film that finally let Tarantino put his ego in check. But if I get another "look directly at the camera and audience and call your own film a masterpiece" moment, I'll be disappointed.

Just to get this off my chest: Bane was a much more menacing villain then Loki, I mean come on, Loki was one giant joke to begin with, his character was comically overacted, He was just comic relief at the end, and there was absolutely no tension in the final fight, because the Avengers are going to win no matter what.

Bane not only Beat batman, but Brought Gotham closer to its knees than the Joker ever did, He was much more intriguing than Loki, Seeing as he had a real past. Not just "Oh he was some god born on another planet who's cartoonishly evil" Loki might as well of had a Snidely Whiplash 'stash and worn a black trench coat

Though overall, I dont really have a preference between The Avengers and TDKR, there both good, not great.

-Sorry for the rant there :/

OT:

This....movie.....was...amazing!!

Seriously, QT knows how to write for his actors! Theyre all portrayed so damn well

Cant decide if I hated Candie or Stephen more...

You know, Bob's interpretation of DiCaprio's villain character actually reminds me of my interpretation of Handsome Jack from Borderlands 2. I know a lot of people gush on about how awesome and hilarious Jack is and he can be very funny- but he's also completely utterly repulsive, a vile monster of the most heartless, sadistic and spiteful kind and my primary motivation to keep playing the game is more than anything the desire to shut that little shit up, kick the crap out of him, ruin everything he cares about and see him die in the most painful way possible. I loathe Jack more than practically any other villain in gaming history and the villain from 'Django' sounds like the same kind of character.

I thought it was hilarious hearing Bob dismiss Bane as 'Mumbles'. I really feel they completely wasted and screwed up the character too. Like, what were they THINKING when they designed that mouthpiece?!

Rogue 09:
Yeah, I'm not really sure why all the hate to Bane. Red Skull was a huge let down, he was still better than the Bond Villain (who was okay, but not really villainy), and anyone from Twilight shouldn't even show their face with that group.

None of them are as bad as Loki, especially in the Avengers where he was more plot device than character.

I love Bane though.

"Oh, you think darkness is your ally. But you merely adopted the dark; I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!"

"Calm down, Doctor! Now's not the time for fear. That comes later."

Farther than stars:
What was wrong with 2012?

-Cloud Atlas (!)
-The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
-Django Unchained
-The Avengers
-The Walking Dead (the adventure game)
-Mass Effect 3
-XCOM: Enemy Unknown
-Assassin's Creed 3
-Far Cry 3

So, yeah... I guess if you're a reviewer in the industry and you have to watch a new movie/play a new game every week, of course 2012 won't have seemed too interesting. But for us consumers the year has been just fine.

I don't think he was talking about movies there. I think he was talking about the world at large. I could be wrong, of course.

I don't read comics so I don't know exactly what Bane is supposed to be like(other than the fact that he was experimented on in a South American prison and controlled the venom with intense meditation) but I really did like the movie version and especially that he isn't a crazed lunatic doing this for fun like Joker.
Raul Manendez's version of Bane was much much better, however to the point that Black Ops 2 is more a tragedy about him than a heroic story about the main characters. It would could have only be made better if he was a Pakistani whose sister is killed in a drone attack with a drone controlled by Woods. It would give much more weight and context to the scene where he remotely destroys all the drones.

I actually felt like that "final gun battle" was superfluous and really dragged down the rest of the film for me. it felt like it sort of stripped away the genuine tension the movie had built up to that point and sort of diluted the character depth for me. I realize that the the final bit is pretty much taken straight out of the films this movie is emulating, but it's really what made this very long film feel overly long and dampened my passion for the whole thing.

Aside from that, awesome movie. Totally recommended. Everyone is awesome in it, and that's coming from someone who really isn't a fan of Jamie Foxx (both in and out of the movies).

Xdeser2:
Just to get this off my chest: Bane was a much more menacing villain then Loki, I mean come on, Loki was one giant joke to begin with, his character was comically overacted, He was just comic relief at the end, and there was absolutely no tension in the final fight, because the Avengers are going to win no matter what.

Bane not only Beat batman, but Brought Gotham closer to its knees than the Joker ever did, He was much more intriguing than Loki, Seeing as he had a real past. Not just "Oh he was some god born on another planet who's cartoonishly evil" Loki might as well of had a Snidely Whiplash 'stash and worn a black trench coat

Though overall, I dont really have a preference between The Avengers and TDKR, there both good, not great.

-Sorry for the rant there :/

OT:

This....movie.....was...amazing!!

Seriously, QT knows how to write for his actors! Theyre all portrayed so damn well

Cant decide if I hated Candie or Stephen more...

I honestly have the sneaking suspicion that Loki planned out all that shit from the beginning. His turn as big joke being a ploy to further a grander scheme. I kind of doubt that's the case, but it'd be pretty badass if it was. He is the "god" of mischief after all.

Also, to be fair, it was the FIRST Avengers movie. I doubt they would've made Batman "lose" in his first reboot film, nor would anyone have suspected that he would. What's more, no one actually thought Bane would blow up Gotham either, so I think we all knew Batman would "win" in the end. His potential death was probably the real coin flip.

indieman1:
I just saw it, meh. The overuse of the n word was just bad. I understand it was depicting a time where "African-American", didn't exist, but they did have other terms for slaves (negro would be a prime example. Somebody needs to put Tarentino on a leash. This one felt schizophrenic. FIrst hour good, went downhill, end kinda redeemed itself. Leo was good though.Also, some dumb kid talked through the whole movie, and he was analyzing it too, badly.

Well, yes there were other terms for slaves other than the the N word, but you have to remember, that the people they were dealing with were the lowest of the scumbags who delt in slavery. Why would they use other words when they can be as insulting as they want to be?

And

I really enjoyed the movie, particularly

I probably would have thrown my drink at the idiot trying to over analyze the movie too loudly.

Baresark:
I can't wait to see this movie. I do find it peculiar that if a movie takes place during the times of Slavery in America, it by extension must be about said subject. I'm not harping on the movie or Movie Bob, it is what is, but it's not like that was the only thing happening from the "discovery of the new world" to 1865.

Yes, it was. RACIST!!!

(I'm agreeing with you through sarcasm.)

It is funny how all "Western" movies these days either have to take place in Australia, or have to take place just after emancipation, that way there is no slavery anymore, so they can't be accused of being insensitive by failing to COMPLETELY FIXATE ON IT.

Loved it as well. Glad we agree.

Now with that out of the way, let me get to the REAL reason I'm commenting.

Because you've been bad and you should feel bad, Bob. Mumbles gets to stay. Bane was great, Tom Hardy played him brilliantly and The Dark Knight Rises was a fantastic movie.

What was so bad about 2012? There were some shootings in the states, but aren't those an accepted fact of life in these days? Also Obama got re-elected so it not like the year was a complete fuck-up for U.S.

OT: Eeeh. I'm skipping this one. I was told Inglorious bastards was the sh*t to watch, and I ended up watching a revenge fantasy porn, all the while having the queasy feeling that someone, somewhere, is jerking off to this. Not really tempted to relive the experience, and this review pretty much confirmed that Django is similar to Bastards. Still, I guess we all have itches that need to be scratched.

Feels like forever since I've seen a Tarantino film, can't wait to see this.

malestrithe:

josh4president:
Interesting how every single white reviewer I've seen loves this movie (Jeremy Jahns, MovieBob, etc.) while a lot of black reviewers despise it (the guys over at Spill.com, for instance).

Interesting how this observation adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm pretty sure it added something, he was talking about the same movie that this thread is named after.

I've always liked how Tarantino's movies in the past have incorporated some elements of Spaghetti Westerns (setting, character, music, whatever), but now that he finally caved in and made one I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm not sure if this film is the one he always wanted to make or a sign of him running out of ideas. Maybe it's neither. I don't know.

Ok Bob, can you tell me what make Red Skull a better villain then Bane? He was boring as hell, but as we all know, you have a big hard on for everything that has to do with the Avengers (even as the film he was in, came out last year) and the bashing of TDKR is getting fucking played out.

FelixG:

indieman1:
I just saw it, meh. The overuse of the n word was just bad. I understand it was depicting a time where "African-American", didn't exist, but they did have other terms for slaves (negro would be a prime example. Somebody needs to put Tarentino on a leash. This one felt schizophrenic. FIrst hour good, went downhill, end kinda redeemed itself. Leo was good though.Also, some dumb kid talked through the whole movie, and he was analyzing it too, badly.

Well, yes there were other terms for slaves other than the the N word, but you have to remember, that the people they were dealing with were the lowest of the scumbags who delt in slavery. Why would they use other words when they can be as insulting as they want to be?

And

I really enjoyed the movie, particularly

I probably would have thrown my drink at the idiot trying to over analyze the movie too loudly.

Why can't you just <the F word>-ing say nigger? Especially in this conext where you aren't even using it offensively?

z121231211:

FelixG:

indieman1:
I just saw it, meh. The overuse of the n word was just bad. I understand it was depicting a time where "African-American", didn't exist, but they did have other terms for slaves (negro would be a prime example. Somebody needs to put Tarentino on a leash. This one felt schizophrenic. FIrst hour good, went downhill, end kinda redeemed itself. Leo was good though.Also, some dumb kid talked through the whole movie, and he was analyzing it too, badly.

Well, yes there were other terms for slaves other than the the N word, but you have to remember, that the people they were dealing with were the lowest of the scumbags who delt in slavery. Why would they use other words when they can be as insulting as they want to be?

And

I really enjoyed the movie, particularly

I probably would have thrown my drink at the idiot trying to over analyze the movie too loudly.


Why can't you just <the F word>-ing say nigger? Especially in this conext where you aren't even using it offensively?

Personally, I have no problem with saying nigger if using it in a discussion relating to a movie or something, but I strive to match the sensibilities of a person I am conversing with.

So if they have a problem with it being used even in relation to a movie such as this or other historical reenactment, book, what have you I will do what I can to accommodate them to have a more pleasant conversation.

Its no skin off my nose saying "N Word" to make a conversation partner more comfortable.

FelixG:

You really need to add some words to that before the mods see it bromigo, dont wanna get hit with their hammer for low content

Updated it. I was referencing the first minute or two of that video. I wouldn't insult someone by using it, but it's not like it's in "can only be referenced by it's first letter" territory. I wasn't really that surprised by how much it was used, considering how much of the characters worked directly with slavery.

z121231211:

FelixG:

You really need to add some words to that before the mods see it bromigo, dont wanna get hit with their hammer for low content

Updated it. I was referencing the first minute or two of that video. I wouldn't insult someone by using it, but it's not like it's in "can only be referenced by it's first letter" territory. I wasn't really that surprised by how much it was used, considering how much of the characters worked directly with slavery.

Updated mine as well, but like I said, I am fine with it either way, I just use whatever form makes my conversational partner feel most comfortable, in this case he used "the n word" so thats what I defaulted to in talking with him.

Eeeeh I thought I would like Tarantino movies but I real don't not one of them real sticks with me. I personally don't dig revenge fantasy type movies. inglorious bastards wasn't even all that funny except for a few parts. I don't know maybe I'm missing something here.

1. Does this Django carry a coffin with a minigun hidden in it?
2. Does this Django use solar-powered weaponry to hunt vampires?

FelixG:

indieman1:
I just saw it, meh. The overuse of the n word was just bad. I understand it was depicting a time where "African-American", didn't exist, but they did have other terms for slaves (negro would be a prime example. Somebody needs to put Tarentino on a leash. This one felt schizophrenic. FIrst hour good, went downhill, end kinda redeemed itself. Leo was good though.Also, some dumb kid talked through the whole movie, and he was analyzing it too, badly.

Well, yes there were other terms for slaves other than the the N word, but you have to remember, that the people they were dealing with were the lowest of the scumbags who delt in slavery. Why would they use other words when they can be as insulting as they want to be?

And

I really enjoyed the movie, particularly

I probably would have thrown my drink at the idiot trying to over analyze the movie too loudly.

THat's what I thought at first as well. But after a while, I felt like Tarentino was acting like a 12 year old kid that just found out about the word. If you want them to portray them as scum, don't just desensitize me to something horrible. I wasn't feeling like they were horrible people (I did at first), but instead I felt it was like a crutch for us to feel that.

Captain America's Red Skeleton was a good villain? I saw the movie in theaters and can't even remember a damn scene he was in that was interesting to watch. The character was about as one dimensional and flat as a Scooby Doo villain, and not even in a fun Saturday Morning cartoon sorta-a-way. The movie itself was pretty bland 2/3s of the way in, and if it wasn't for the first act and the Captain's origins story being done pretty decently, I would have written it off as being just as bad as the Fantastic Five movies.

But anyways, even though Tarantino's movies (except for Pulp) have always ended up falling flat for me, Django seems like it might be a change. Maybe...?

=/

How come most posts look like:

"BOB DID NOT LOVE EVERYTHING IN BATMAN 3!!!!!!!

image
"

I mean really a five second comment and people rant and rave like Bob wiped his ass with a mint condition New Hope poster.

Personally I cant wait to see Django in a week or so.

Yesssssss!!!

Delighted to hear the positive review. I love my westerns, and I was concerned that Tarantino's shtick might have worn too thin to pull it off. Can't wait to see this one.

Nomanslander:
Captain America's Red Skeleton was a good villain? I saw the movie in theaters and can't even remember a damn scene he was in that was interesting to watch. The character was about as one dimensional and flat as a Scooby Doo villain, and not even in a fun Saturday Morning cartoon sorta-a-way. The movie itself was pretty bland 2/3s of the way in, and if it wasn't for the first act and the Captain's origins story being done pretty decently, I would have written it off as being just as bad as the Fantastic Five movies.

But anyways, even though Tarantino's movies (except for Pulp) have always ended up falling flat for me, Django seems like it might be a change. Maybe...?

=/

The problem with Red Skull is that he is utterly impotent. After getting the magic cube at the beginning, he doesn't have a single damn victory throughout the movie. He perpetually gets his ass handed to him by Cpt America and his troops, undermining any threat or superiority he might have had. There is even a scene in which he fecklessly shakes his fist at the Captain, unable to do anything as the guy blows up his factory, except for shouting something like "Garrr! I'll get you next time!"

In these flights of fantasy, its the villain that makes the movie. The protagonist was fine, but the movie wasn't going to be anything above average without a Hans Gruber or a Darth Vader.

So it's a good movie with a deep protagonist and an antagonist whose motivations are clear that happens to involve unflinching depictions of slavery and appropriate and liberal use of the word "nigger".

No wonder Spike Lee is whining about this, he wishes he could have made such a good movie that involves race. At least no one is really paying attention to his calls of boycott

I would like to see the movie, But I do not like Violence, blood, ect (Most of his movies).

Still the story sounds like a good one. *sigh* Nope, I must resign myself to Not seeing this one.

I think.... I think Bob came...

Keen to see this now. Been a while since I saw a good western.

josh4president:
Interesting how every single white reviewer I've seen loves this movie (Jeremy Jahns, MovieBob, etc.) while a lot of black reviewers despise it (the guys over at Spill.com, for instance).

not really just the few behind spike lee and his crazy ass most everyone in the theatre where I was was an even mix and the whole theatre LOVED IT! Like it actually felt like we came together in a sincere way instead of that ass kiss way that salon.com and there ilk are known for.

I don't know if it's been said yet, but the real "original sin" of America would be the genocide and cultural rape of the Natives, which is the only disagreement I have with Bob's review.

I agree with everything said in this review. The movie IS incredibly well acted, shot, and paced. I have absolutely no complaints aside from a feeling I got toward the very end that they were dragging the plot's resolution out a bit too long. Even that may have been Tarantino's way of emulating a Spaghetti Western style, so I can't really fault him for it.

However, I would like to bring up a question that is not based on my own knowledge or opinions, but was instead brought up by a historically... versed friend with whom I saw the film.
He believed that Tarantino's sensationalist nature, which is focused upon riling up the audience and inciting an aggressive emotional investment in his films, played a major part in his depiction of slavery and Southern racism within the movie. For the vast majority of the film, the entire population of the Southern States (I think they focused primarily on Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) is represented as being just as aggressively and sadistically racist as Calvin Candie himself. While the mindset of White Americans at the time was programmed through generational teachings to believe themselves racially, intellectually, and culturally superior to black citizens and slaves, this sort of aggression and cruelty should not have been as common or consistent as Tarantino made it seem. Pretty much every location was depicted as being either a slave market or a plantation.

My question to anyone who has an opinion to share or wishes to enlighten me is: Do you believe this is an unfair exaggeration on Tarantino's part in order to accomplish more of an emotional weight within his film, or is he justified?

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text.

AzureFlameLord:
I agree with everything said in this review. The movie IS incredibly well acted, shot, and paced. I have absolutely no complaints aside from a feeling I got toward the very end that they were dragging the plot's resolution out a bit too long. Even that may have been Tarantino's way of emulating a Spaghetti Western style, so I can't really fault him for it.

However, I would like to bring up a question that is not based on my own knowledge or opinions, but was instead brought up by a historically... versed friend with whom I saw the film.
He believed that Tarantino's sensationalist nature, which is focused upon riling up the audience and inciting an aggressive emotional investment in his films, played a major part in his depiction of slavery and Southern racism within the movie. For the vast majority of the film, the entire population of the Southern States (I think they focused primarily on Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) is represented as being just as aggressively and sadistically racist as Calvin Candie himself. While the mindset of White Americans at the time was programmed through generational teachings to believe themselves racially, intellectually, and culturally superior to black citizens and slaves, this sort of aggression and cruelty should not have been as common or consistent as Tarantino made it seem. Pretty much every location was depicted as being either a slave market or a plantation.

My question to anyone who has an opinion to share or wishes to enlighten me is: Do you believe this is an unfair exaggeration on Tarantino's part in order to accomplish more of an emotional weight within his film, or is he justified?

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text.

It's like why Star Wars looks to be all bars and imperial bases. I'm sure there are bakeries, but they're not relevant.

Benpasko:

AzureFlameLord:
I agree with everything said in this review. The movie IS incredibly well acted, shot, and paced. I have absolutely no complaints aside from a feeling I got toward the very end that they were dragging the plot's resolution out a bit too long. Even that may have been Tarantino's way of emulating a Spaghetti Western style, so I can't really fault him for it.

However, I would like to bring up a question that is not based on my own knowledge or opinions, but was instead brought up by a historically... versed friend with whom I saw the film.
He believed that Tarantino's sensationalist nature, which is focused upon riling up the audience and inciting an aggressive emotional investment in his films, played a major part in his depiction of slavery and Southern racism within the movie. For the vast majority of the film, the entire population of the Southern States (I think they focused primarily on Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) is represented as being just as aggressively and sadistically racist as Calvin Candie himself. While the mindset of White Americans at the time was programmed through generational teachings to believe themselves racially, intellectually, and culturally superior to black citizens and slaves, this sort of aggression and cruelty should not have been as common or consistent as Tarantino made it seem. Pretty much every location was depicted as being either a slave market or a plantation.

My question to anyone who has an opinion to share or wishes to enlighten me is: Do you believe this is an unfair exaggeration on Tarantino's part in order to accomplish more of an emotional weight within his film, or is he justified?

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text.

It's like why Star Wars looks to be all bars and imperial bases. I'm sure there are bakeries, but they're not relevant.

Well, that is a problem to me, because I live in the Southern States. Yes, slavery was an unspeakable evil, and the continued racism after the Civil War was arguably worse. However, to exaggerate the hatred and ignorance present within the Southern States or to imply that there was nothing else through lack of representation is completely unfair and unjust. Certainly it was not the point of the film at all, but less informed people could watch this film and develop biases towards the Southern States. This sort of thing is the reason that many people up north think we still don't have internet or running water here. The South is where a lot of horrible things like the Ku Klux Klan thrived, but it is also the source of much of America's unique culture. Hospitality and friendliness is an unspoken code that has permeated Southern society due to its background of small agricultural communities. I just think it's ridiculous and unfair that, to Tarantino, every White American was an evil bastard while the only whitey with human traits was a German immigrant. Maybe I'm taking it too personally, but it seems to me that Tarantino may have aimed his theme of "revenge" too broadly.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here