Jump to content

baumer

Django Unchained

  

77 members have voted

  1. 1. Grade it



Recommended Posts

Grade: B+My real big complaint is that the movie felt as long as it's running time. I tighter screenplay and or some editing could've tightened this up by about 15-20min and made it better. It would still be over 2hrs and allow for development, some of the the development just felt drawn out in the middle. Kudos to QT for jumping right in and getting the Brittle Brothers in the first 30min. I actually thought that was what the thrust of the movie was based on the few trailers I'd seen. Great acting, directing etc and for me it's QT new #2 film for me. Pulp Fiction remains my favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Django Unchained is a Quentin Tarantino experience from top to bottom. The sharp dialogue, the engaging personalities, the shifts between dark humor and squirm-worthy violence, the use of anecdotes to cleverly establish and develop character, and the intriguing mix of genres (in this case, the western and the blaxploitation film) are all there, and all work yet again. If there's anything that's off in the film, it's the editing; while it's not badly edited (in fact, the dinner scene has a simmering tension comparable with that of the Operation Kino chapter of Inglourious Basterds), it's not quite as neatly assembled as the films edited by the late Sally Menke. That said, it's still remarkably enjoyable and doesn't drag often despite a hefty 165-minute running time. As usual with Tarantino films, the acting is aces. Jamie Foxx has no trouble transforming Django into a badass over the course of the film; Christoph Waltz is almost as charismatic and magnetic as he was in Inglourious Basterds, as he can command attention by simply launching into a story or an explanation; Leonardo DiCaprio gives his loosest and most enjoyable performance in years (at least as enjoyable as a reprehensible character can be, anyway), yet brings just enough venom to the role that he keeps the audience against his character; and Samuel L. Jackson does a really good job portraying his character as a multifaceted individual who means serious business, yet realizes that he has to play the fool in order to gain whatever power he can in his station. Like Inglourious Basterds before it, it also works as an unconventional revenge film with deliberately questionable morality. It's on the lower end of Tarantino's work to date, but it's still immensely enjoyable in the moment and leaves the viewer with issues to ponder afterward.

A-

Edited by Webslinger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I didn't expect it to make me laugh and suddenly move me to tears in the next second (My goodness, how Tarantino used Bacalov's La Corsa when Django shoots down the Brittle Bros, I had goosebumps, chills, shitted my pants, cheered with the crowd while fist pumping, tears flowing on my cheeks all at the same moment). I need time to process and properly resume my thoughts but for me it was ace and well above Inglourious Basterds (which I gave a A- because Melanie Laurent annoyed me big time). The movie is too short, I'd like to see that badass shootout and Django/Stephen confrontation extended!

Everyone brought their A game. Loved all the performances all around with nice cameos by James Russo and James Remar as brothers. One of the many brilliant ideas Tarantino had. (How cutesy Broomhilda was when she tried to protect her ears from Candieland explosion :wub: )

Edited by dashrendar44
Link to comment
Share on other sites



One thing I thought the film lacked was a true antagonist in terms of skill. Calvin Candie and Stephen were thematic antagonists, but there wasn't anyone who could come close to giving the heroes a run for their money in a shootout. The result was that most of the shootout scenes weren't as tense as they could have been.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Walton Goggins almost burnt off Django's balls. That's a physical villain, though his role probably could have been expanded. You also had to assume Django wouldn't just die in a shootout. He's the hero of the movie. And the fastest gun in the west!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goggins was good in his small role, but the film was hurt by the removal of Ace Woody from the plot. That role was the closest we got to someone who could conceivably have a chance in fighting Django/Schultz. But when Costner and then Russell (or the other way around) dropped out of the film, they merged the character with Goggins' Billy Crash so we got a neutered hybrid in which Goggins had a little more to do but not as much as Ace Woody had in the shooting script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Saw it again. I now think the sole problem of the film is that it's not five hours long. I wanted to spend so much more time in this world.

Did you? I felt it was really long, and that it felt as long if not longer than its running time. Especially the ending portion.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Good to see that SLJ gets a lot of praise here. When I read the script Stephen was my favorite character and I'm glad he gets enough screen time to shine. I can't wait to see it, less than two weeks for me.

SLJ is too funny and sinister for words. Evil Uncle Ben. Nuff said.he aslo slagged Lincoln:http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2013/01/my_man.php Edited by fishnets
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Djagno3:30PMMostly older audience-about 40% full.Trailers:Movie 43: Yuck. Early contender for worse picture? Audience hated it (Even heard a fart sound!)Die Hard 5: Laughs.Dark Skies: I think the entire movie was shown in this trailer. Looks pure evil really...Stand Up Guys: Laughs.Scary Movie 5: Quite a bit of laughs actually-looks funny the more I think about it.Oblvion.Movie: Pretty good. Not the best of the year but still made well. I use the term "western" loosley for this as it really is not one. I think if it wins anything it should be for cinematragrophy. The movie is quite disturbing at times (I think I saw more Jamie Foxx then I ever want to see...) and quite graphic also. The audience loved the humor-so did I. The music was pretty good (the rap was way out of place though) overall a fun filmA-

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Did you? I felt it was really long, and that it felt as long if not longer than its running time. Especially the ending portion.

It doesn't feel like 90 minutes or anything but it just goes by and I'm so engaged with the movie that I don't care. The second viewing helped me frame the movie a bit more so the third act (after the Candieland shootout) felt more natural to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites





The ability of QT to create memorable characters is quite unique in the current cinematic landscape.Loved it and just saw IB today, those movies could be twins.I would have liked a little bit more of crazy evil Leo, he was great. Samuel L Jackson Character was glorious. Foxx was a badass revenge hero and the dialogs and set pieces were brilliant just as aussual.Waltz was lead, his Oscar nom as supporting is a joke.Ray Charles reverse schlong was prosthetics me thinks.Oh, and this movie won't win any Oscar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites







Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.