Films of Tarantino

I didn't know whether to make this thread for The Chin or the Weinstien Brothers, but anyway Django Unchained kicked all sorts of ass. It's like Kill Bill and Blazing Saddles had a baby. I can see how the violence and language could be too much, but after just having read King Leopold's Ghost it was so viscerally satisfying.

I really loved it too. And as much of a Leo fangirl as I am, I think the first hour is actually stronger. The pacing/characterization/humor, everything hits just perfectly. When it moves into Act 2, I think it gets messier. I also

Spoiler:

All that said, I do think Leo was amazing, and I hope he can get a nomination this year. But the field is so stacked, it's going to be tough.

BUT CAN WE TALK ABOUT DEATH PROOF?

Cc: bookworm

I thought that Django was really good and fun, but it felt a little redundant to me, like Quentin was just hitting the notes he always does. I am a fan of his and think those notes are largely great, but I thought that Inglorious Basterds was much better and culminated the "revenge fantasy" in a more interesting way.

Agree with swsa on the pacing. And I also preferred Inglorious Basterds, though I still loved Django. I read somewhere that Will Smith turned down the role, and I'm glad he did. Jamie Foxx was perfect.

I went to it on Christmas Day at about 10 pm and there was a CRYING BABY. During the scene where they are playing Für Elise on the harp, no less. Someone in the theater actually yelled, "Take your goddamn baby out!" And everyone clapped. They STILL didn't take the baby out, but it finally stopped crying. (If you are going to take a baby to a movie, which I can't control, at least sit on the edge of the row and not smack dab in the middle, like these people.) So, I loved the movie, but arguably the most intense scene of the entire film was a bit ruined.

I didn't care for Django. While there were some things I really liked about it (DiCaprio, Waltz, and Jackson), overall, the pacing left a lot to be desired. I nearly fell asleep at a few parts. Also, I thought Jamie Foxx could have been anyone. He's a very good actor, but if it was supposed to be Django's movie, he should have done more. I felt like we hardly knew a thing about his character, and that was disappointing. Put me in the "Inglorious Basterds is better" camp.

I really liked it and so relieved that it was as rape-y as I feared it could have been given the subject matter. I agree about the dragginess of the second act, but I have come to expect some period of drag in a QT movie so I could handle it OK without it detracting from my enjoyment.

I thought Jamie and Christoph had great movie chemistry.

I felt like I knew enough about Django just fine for a QT revenge movie. No more or less than any other QT character.

I really enjoyed the first 2/3 of this. It fused tension and absurdity in a marvelous way, and DiCaprio and Waltz were flat-out amazing, as was Foxx.

But the last third was...redundant? indulgent? flat-out bad? I don't know exactly, but I was so disappointed in the last act that it almost ruined the entire film for me.

Still, I hope DiCaprio gets nominated.

MaddyCat wrote:I really enjoyed the first 2/3 of this. It fused tension and absurdity in a marvelous way, and DiCaprio and Waltz were flat-out amazing, as was Foxx.

But the last third was...redundant? indulgent? flat-out bad? I don't know exactly, but I was so disappointed in the last act that it almost ruined the entire film for me.

Still, I hope DiCaprio gets nominated.

I had ZERO interest in seeing Django Unchained (below zero, honestly), but my friends invited me to go to a cheap theater, so I figured I may as well. Color me shocked when I realized that I was really and truly enjoying the film. The acting was phenomenal, for one thing. (Christoph Waltz is a treasure just like in Inglorious Basterds! Leo was as fantastic as he always is. Sam Jackson cracked me up and pissed me off in equal parts, meaning he did his muthaf*ckin' job.) The soundtrack was excellent, too. I laughed when I heard Rick Ross start thumping outta the speakers! Hip-hop in a Western movie? BADASS. I thought the pacing was just fine until the third act, like MaddyCat mentioned. All of a sudden, it felt to me like things were being rushed just to get the movie to its ending. I think there were two parts in the last 20 minutes where I thought the movie would finish on an open-ended note...and then it just kept going.

Until I saw it I thought it was Stanley Tucci playing Schultz.

I have a hard tiem comparing this to IB, because this on feels more of an overt comedy (or at least Tarintino's rif on a comedy) while IB felt like a war movie (or Tarintino's riff on a war move).

Saw it. Loved it. If I have a daughter, I'd want to name her Broomhilda.

I have never heard of the hot box punishment that was featured in Django. That was just scary as hell to think that Broomhilda was laying nude in a scalding hot metal box for a whole day and was supposed to be there another 11 more.

I've heard of it, but I thought it was a room, not basically a coffin in the ground. It's horrifying to think about, but not surprising. When you think of others as things, its easy to do horrible shit.

It's interesting because I've heard of these things and read about them, but seeing it in play in such a pulpy way elicited a reaction that I didn't have before. So admittedly, I was cheering at the end with the shootout and the end.

The last act makes perfect sense to me given the nature of his films and what he was riffing off of, so I .was cool with the sudden detour into the Australian Outback. He might need a better editor to rein him in a bit, but that's minor for me. Few writers and directors surprise and delight me like he does.

Now I want a movie of Django and Broomhilda as bounty hunters.

Oh, I thought the final act made perfect sense! I just wish it had been edited better. Rather than flowing together smoothly, the progression of the scenes felt a bit stilted.

Pulp Fiction was on HBO the other night and though I only meant to watch the first few minutes I was completely sucked in and sat through it all. I've seen it eleventy billion times and it still holds up as well as the first viewing. The performances are uniformly excellent, aside from QT (and man, is he the WORST actor in the world or what? He can't get the dialogue - that he himself wrote - out convincingly) and possibly Uma, though her performance has grown on me over the years. There's a huge trove of trivia on it at imdb, though much of it seems implausible even while it's highly entertaining - like the tidbit which says that Daniel Day Lewis wanted to play Vince Vega or that QT considered Michelle Pfeiffer for Mia.

whatthedeuce wrote:Oh, I thought the final act made perfect sense! I just wish it had been edited better. Rather than flowing together smoothly, the progression of the scenes felt a bit stilted.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. My husband and I were talking about how it could've been tweaked a bit here and there. I wonder if some of it is that he's got a new editor instead of Sally Menke (who died in back in 2010). But also, by the point I see him escape, I was also like "We're getting close to the end, so let's wrap this up," given that it was more than two hours in.

To me, it flowed fine, but that's just me.

I wonder if there was more to it that got chopped -- like we'll see it in a special DVD or something.

Also, Pulp Fiction continues to be one of my favorite movies of all time -- even if whenever he shows up on screen things seem to grind to a halt. I think he likes fucking shit up with his bad acting cameos if he can get away with it.

I think that was part of the problem for me, editing-wise. It's like I could sense the film's editor thinking, "Whoa, this is already so long! Better wrap it up as quickly as possible!" I feel like the film transitioned from one scene to the next so seamlessly and naturally for the first two hours, but in the last 25 minutes or so, it felt jumpy and choppy. But again, in what was otherwise a really damn good film, that isn't much if a quibble.

I haven't seen many Tarantino movies, but does he always make a cameo? He's kinda really horrendous and should never be allowed to utter his own dialogue in front of a camera.

He does. Pulp Fiction he's Jimmy, Jules' friend, and in Reservoir Dogs I believe he's Mr. Brown (thankfully he doesn't talk there). The best acting job he did was as an answering machine voice for Jackie Brown's machine in my opinion. He's not good, but he's so gleeful about it, that I'm willing to forgive him. But I'm pretty forgiving of him in general.

And I was right about there being a longer movie -- apparently, there's a five hour director's cut of the movie. I'd love to see it, especially if it fleshes out Broomhilda more. I suspect this is also why the ending felt choppy and some questions weren't answered completely.

If there's a sequel to Django with Broomhilda and him doing the Underground Railroad, I would pay serious money for that.

Broomhilda was so integral to the plot, and yet I feel like we didn't ultimately see or learn as much about her as I'd have liked. I wish we could have seen more about what she went through while at Candie Land, but I know the film's focus was Django's mission to find her and so things would be seen from his point of view, and he wasn't there to witness whatever she suffered through. It would be awesome to get a sequel to this film where we see them kicking ass and taking names together!

A sequel to Django Unchained is right up there with my dream for a sequel to Kill Bill where Vivica A. Fox's daughter goes for revenge against The Bride.

Loved, loved, loved it. But what was the story with Zoe Bell? Chekhov would not approve. You don't show Zoe Bell in Act I if you don't set her off in Act III.

Hold up, ZOE'S in Django?

Also, that is exactly how I felt when she was "on" Lost.

Her face is covered, but she's one of the seven "trackers". She gets, like, just enough camera focus to make you think Something Is Up, setting her up to be something important later, but... nope.

I was wondering who was under that kerchief or whatever it was that hid her face. When they showed her in Act III, and you could really only see her eyes, it looked like Cate Blanchett to me, but I figured it was too random for Cate to be in a Tarantino movie and not do anything significant.

I hated that too, but Tarantino loves being the anti-Chekhov's Gun. I feel like in every single movie there are multiple little things like that that lead nowhere, usually involving cameos of actors he loves (random shot of Amber Tamblyn, Jonah Hill's role, etc.). I'm sure he thinks he's being winky and subversive. This did not stop me from spending my $10 or anything. Also I loved it.