Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

[RRA]

I want to see Django and Broomhilda, both badass gunslingers, working their way up North as bounty hunters. Imagine Kerry Washington with close-cropped hair, breech-clouts, and a pair of pistols. Goddamn.

Yes!



The sequel title? Umm....DJANGO UNLEASHED?

[RRA]

[lazarus]

The best thing about Quentin winning director would be getting to hear that speech. Like, who knows what he might say while he's up there.

It would be nuts.

[RRA]

The best thing about Quentin winning director would be getting to hear that speech. Like, who knows what he might say while he's up there.

It would be nuts.

He would be drunk.

But seriously, you know as unlikely as it is (even though it would sound like him) I could actually see him in that speech dedicating his win to the countless "junk" directors that inspired him, or those he adored but are underrated (DePalma,Carpenter, Fuller, etc.) and give them some sort of day in the sun since they never had their moment, but he did because of their movies.

[KMKinCB]

I really want Leo to get nominated for this. My 3rd favorite role of his behind Grape and Catch Me If You Can.

[RRA]

i must commend Samuel L. Jackson. I can't remember the last time he actually played a character and not simply playing "Samuel L. Jackson," with the only variety being eyepatch or no eyepatch. I said this in the Supporting Actor predict thread, but I'm surprised he hasn't gotten anymore traction in the current races. (Or for that matter, over Waltz.)

I like that one argument I've read that he's the real interesting, complex villain of the movie. Leo is a sadist pushing and expanding your expectations for a villain slave owner character can be. In that regard he reminded me of Ralph Fiennes for SCHINDLER'S LIST. Of course he's bad from the get go just for his occupation, but then Leo raises up the tempo in his sadism and just showing off how evil he can be. Jackson however, his character is a product of that system and by playing the game and politics of that household/candyland he's carved himself out some power (if you will) in that enclosed world. I'm sure his anger at Foxx was that all these decades to get to be in Leo's regular company and chummy with him, and this stranger in a horse sits at the white table in 1 day. Even in some ways Jackson does influence (manipuiate?) Leo, so I suppose if one wants to could argue who was the real villain of the movie since the movie has Jackson as the final boss level like a video game.

[Bean]

I know Tarantino said he doesn't like John Ford, and it's clear that his style couldn't be further from Ford's, but his use of genre to explore history and American mythology is right out of the master's wheelhouse. Loved the hell out of this and will have a lot more to say soon.

[Spielberg_Fan]

I know Tarantino said he doesn't like John Ford, and it's clear that his style couldn't be further from Ford's, but his use of genre to explore history and American mythology is right out of the master's wheelhouse. Loved the hell out of this and will have a lot more to say soon.

This surprises me to an extent. I remember a pretty clear visual quote of The Searchers in Inglourious Basterds.

[Eternal]

And again how he doesn't like Ford who influenced Leone who influenced Tarantino.

[Hatshepsutely]

He doesn't dislike Ford for his film-making style. He hates Ford because of his involvement in Birth of Nation as one of the klansmen; he considers it virulently racist.

[lazarus]

I wonder if he hates Raoul Walsh, too. Seeing as how he played John Wilkes Booth.


And if we judged every actor by the villainous roles they played...wouldn't be a lot of people left.

[Jonathan]

I wonder if he hates Raoul Walsh, too. Seeing as how he played John Wilkes Booth.


And if we judged every actor by the villainous roles they played...wouldn't be a lot of people left.

Well, if Raoul Walsh played John Wilkes Booth in a movie that portrayed Booth as a selfless martyr of the South who was assassinating the evil, evil President Lincoln and cheered him for doing so, maybe he would.

I think Tarantino just means that Ford was involved in that movie at all, especially directly involved in the most morally awful aspect of the film.

[RRA]

I remember QT somewhere saying he wasn't a John Huston fan, which quite surprised me.

[Stéphane]

Great interview! I had to google Tony Tarantino. The guy seems like a real piece of shit.

[Aurelius]

I loved the bloody hell out of this. Those almost three hours flew by, and I think there was very little that felt like it should be cut. And if Christoph Waltz just gets stuck in this sort of role for the rest of his life, you will not hear me complaining. Sure, it was Hans Landa Goes West, but dear God did I love him. Everybody else invoolvedwas great as well, but he just was on a whole other level for me.

I didn't think this was that violent? Sure, there are a lot of deaths, and a lot of blood, but virtually all of it is cartoonish (the showers of blood, LOL). The only scene that doesn't feel as such is when the slave is torn up by the dogs, but here Tarantino uses the power of imagination very well: most of the violence is off-screen in this scene, only later (when Schultz thinks back on the incident) do we see a little more of it, and it is the direct incentive for Schultz to do what he does next.

[Bean]

I found http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-med...acism-violence quite interesting. I think the author underestimates audiences' reaction to films like True Grit and The Searchers, but it's not like a reading of those films that finds a defense of the "lost cause" can't be made.

[filmy]

I don't know if anyone else felt this way (reading through this thread makes me think not), but I found this to be one of the most revolting films I have ever seen. I was literally nauseated and wondered how anyone could find any of this "entertaining" or, worse, "comedic". I feel awful that I spent good money to support something like this (though, thankfully, I was able to get a refund.) This is the first time I have ever walked out of a movie, much less asked for my money back.

The "Mandingo" fight scene was horrible enough, but when it came time an innocent man get brutally dismembered by dogs, that really is too much. I've seen a lot of incredibly violent films, and I really should be the last person to be the "morality police", but this film in particular seems to operate in some vacuum completely devoid of humanity. This is the best I can do to describe just how much this film (and my audience's reaction to it) disturbed me.

I walked out of this. Like just now. My friends are still in the theater, LOL. And I know this is such a knee-jerk ridiculous reaction, but I'm basically at the point where I am so cynical that I think anyone who could like is an idiot but it's no surprise that it will play well. Like I have never felt so strongly about a movie. It's VILE. And it's making me now rethink all of his previous movies.

[siowafc]

I walked out of this. Like just now. My friends are still in the theater, LOL. And I know this is such a knee-jerk ridiculous reaction, but I'm basically at the point where I am so cynical that I think anyone who could like is an idiot but it's no surprise that it will play well. Like I have never felt so strongly about a movie. It's VILE. And it's making me now rethink all of his previous movies.

Aww...!

[guany]

[OscarLovesMe]

What about this film, exactly, made you feel that way?