Django Unchained

[bbobb]

I don't get the hate. If the scene didn't have him cast in it, or only had two Aussies it wouldn't have mattered to the overall composition of the movie. #notanissue

Why were there Aussies in the first place, let alone tarantino doing a bad aussie accent?

[Dolemite]

Death Proof was garbage.

Yes.

He's always super awkward and immediately pulls me out of whatever I'm watching.

Yes.

[Diff-chan]

So much wrong. Death Proof is amazing.

Plus, it was a Stanley Kubrick film .... until the last hour.

I know the hipsters all claimed the first half was all Kubrick and the second half was all Spielberg, with the implication being the first half was total genius and the second half blew ass, but yea, it wasn't really that simple. I'm an AI fan too and rewatched it recently. Both parts had their strengths and weaknesses.

It's not like Kubrick movies weren't sometimes maddeningly dischordant (Full Metal Jacket - I love the entire thing though).

[Fe 26]

Why were there Aussies in the first place,

because he wanted to find out how many Americans are stupid.

[Frogacuda]

So much wrong. Death Proof is amazing.

Death Proof had amazing parts, and arguably the best car chase sequence ever filmed, but it also had by far the weakest dialog Tarantino has ever written, which dragged it down a lot. Especially in the longer DVD cut.

[Josh]

I liked death proof a lot. Just watched the extended cut a couple days ago. I didn't mind the talky parts. Overall I'd say it's a good movie. Full disclosure: Kurt Russell being in it sort of sways my opinion a bit.

[Diff-chan]

The movie wouldn't be the same without him.

[Josh]

Every movie.

[sleeve]

So to recap, I loved Django Unchained. I enjoyed the hell out of it. I've thought about it this past week, particularly in light of Frogacuda's criticism:

I feel like there are times when directors are trying too hard to be themselves (see: Every Tim Burton movie from Corpse Bride on), and this was that moment for Tarantino. A lot of this movie was quiet, intense, and utterly brutal portrayal of the cruelty of slavery in the south, and it was really effective, but then these willfully campy Tarantino-isms would undercut that, or the movie would explode into some over-the-top Sam Peckinpah shoot-out, or some otherwise cartoony detour, and it worked against the film. It would have been great to see Tarantino pull a True Grit, and just do a straight-up, serious Western without having to throw in all these winky flourishes.

I basically agree with this.

Tarantino makes genre movies. He's also an excellent writer, one of our best living screenwriters. Sometimes his love for trash and cheapo genre flicks gets in the way of a really good story.

Take a look at his last two movies: this one and Inglourious Basterds. The "Basterds" were actually the least interesting part of the movie. If it were nothing but Brad Pitt and Eli Roth slaughtering Nazis, it would have been dull and forgettable. But Shoshanna and Hans Landa are both fascinating characters that elevate the movie into something far more interesting. If the movie entirely focused on them, and less on cheeky genre references, it would have been even better. Basterds manages to be a fascinating, suspenseful, and creative movie despite the silly pulpy sequences.

Django has a similar problem. It's an exciting, watchable film. But the gory shootout sequences are the least interesting parts of the movie. I would have rather watched a movie that focused on Stephen -- some kind of "Downton Abbey" in hell/Mississippi.

Both Django and Basterds are excellent movies, but I feel like I'm watching a much more interesting filmmaker struggling to emerge from them.

[MechDeus]

http://www.channel4.com/news/quentin...your-butt-down

Tarantino does not care for your angle! He is here to make money!