Django Unchained -- new Tarantino film (1 Viewer)

[jdoggydogg]

I like Spike. I like his personality, and I count Do The Right Thing as one of my top 100 favorite movies. But he just looks bad here. If a civilian wants to boycott a movie without even seeing it, that's expected. But I expect more from an artist in the same field.

Tarantino in that interview 'looked' worse. Using the N-Bomb to excess is just plain arrogant coming from him. Lee made "4 Little Girls", so Lee isn't out of context criticizing Tarantino. Tarantino trivialized the N-Bomb to comic effect. Using that word to excess combined with the blood spaghetti slopfest is no comment on that period of time. It's Tarantino flipping the bird at convention for sure, but it's for his own purposes, not for the sake of art. Tarantino knows how much his scripts get quoted too, so that's more calculated than his half ### defense of using that word.

If I posted that word over 100 times here, I would get banned for life. You'll tell me this isn't an R-Rated movie. Which somehow qualifies that word. Micheal Richards pretty much ended his career shouting that word at a heckler, while Richard Pryor used it in a title of one of his recordings and in his routines. Yet Pryor later regretted using that word, and stopped using it, and I'm sure Richards regrets it.

I'm just not gonna accept it as art when I feel Tarantino uses that word for commerce. He could had used it 90 less times and still got his point across, but that word flows out of him like water. If you accept that, fine. He wasn't making an accurate period film anyway, so I guess it's all entertainment to you.

Well said. Now that this discussion has transcended any minor personal beef you and I had, we can get down to some really fascinating discussions on this subject. Where to begin? Is Tarantino a great social critic in the realm of men like Mark Twain or Aldus Huxley? No. I know that Tarantino is very proud of his work, and I am certain he believes he is very intelligent. However, I also think that Tarantino would freely admit that he makes entertaining movies that often simply intersect with powerful cultural and historical topics. So even though I liked Django, I would agree with some critics that the movie simultaneously opens up some very painful wounds while offering no answers in lieu of grisly action and jokes.

But let's be honest: is it every filmmaker's duty to present simple truths in a somber, stoic manner? I think not. Take the KKK scene: someone else mentioned that it's almost ripped right out of Blazing Saddles, and that's an apt comparison. To take that further, the KKK scene reminded me of Dave Chappell's sketch about the white Klansman. There are some things in life - like slavery and racism - that are almost too much to bear. They are so horrific and awful, I have a hard time coping with them on any level. So to laugh at this stuff is cathartic to a degree.

Did you read up on that ESPN commentator who said that Robert Griffen III isn't a real black man? I haven't read your opinion on that matter. But personally, I think that's a mean, awful thing to say about a man. Does the race of the man make those comments worse or less bad? I don't know. Would it be ok if a black director used the N word 100 times in his movie? Even for laughs?

Words are very painful. That old saying that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I hate that cliche. Words are the most hurtful thing in the world. You can easily recover from a broken bone. Words can sting for a lifetime. So I am acutely aware that the N word is a malicious, terrible word. So is Tarantino. I think that Spike Lee is angry at Tarantino because he believes that Django Unchained is turning a horrific mass murder into mere entertainment. What about Schindler's List? Yes, Spielberg's masterpiece is a serious, dark portrait of a terrible tragedy. That movie made a lot of money, and it gave millions of viewers a chance to feel a shred of goodness about something where there is no reason to feel good.

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock. William Friedkin will never live down Jade. That movie pretty hurt Linda Fiorentio's and Chazz Palmenteri's career's as well as made a mockery of David Caruso's decision to leave NYPD Blue.Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.

ETA: about RG3 and the comment - We live in a day where we have a multi page discussion over Brent Musberger's comments over a beauty queen and a Bama QB. Like the hot cheerleader never dates the High School QB. Had that Bama QB was dating a Mayim Bialik, or the beauty queen was dating a computer science major..

Blazing Saddles is a terrific movie that parodies westerns more than it does race, and a lot of it was almost by accident. They songwriter who worte the theme song didn't even know it was a comedy, and Gene Wilder as the Waco Kid wasn't Brook's first choice IIRC. Difference between Blazing Saddles and Django: one film was parody. Guess which one?

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock.

Absolutely. I am a Tarantino fanboy, and I love Verhoeven's wacky insanity. I wouldn't ever call these guys "great" in the same way I'd call Coppola and Scorsese great. But they make entertaining movies that appeal to me.

Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

I don't think it's a matter of growing up. If you look at Jackie Brown, that's a very mature, adult movie. True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.



If you had substituted The Elephant Man with Irreversible, he would have jumped out of the window.

I've only seen Jackie Brown once, and that's all I needed to see of that film. I do like Robert Forster in that movie though. Requiem For a Dream wasn't out yet, so my roommate was safe there.

Jackie Brown is QT's best film, and Forster and Pam Grier are the main reason why for me. The supporting cast was great as usual, but those 2 killed it. SLJ and DeNiro especially had interesting characters, but that one is all about Forster and Grier and they are both great. And really for the people who dont like Tarantino, they should watch JB and think again.

You could easily argue that Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's best movie. But I think that Jackie Brown is his most mature film. Yes, Forster and and Grier are just incredible. As a bonus, you get DeNiro's last great performance.

 

[jdoggydogg]

You haven't answered my question

What did people refer to black people as in the mid 19th century?

That isn't a serious question, because it isn't a period slur. It's still used when referring to African American people this century. What I find odd? People more sensitive to my criticism of Tarantino using that word than being sensitive to the word itself.

I can't speak for any other poster here, but this is so not true for me. I don't think Tarantino is some kind of infallible deity that should never be questioned or criticized.

I think that any film director should do better than his last film, and that's an unrealistic expectation. The Godfather Part III should had never been made, and Garden's of Stone was just as bad from Coppola. But it's even more unrealistic to think that Oliver Stone can do better than JFK. He has been pretty horrid since. But at least he has JFK, and I think Platoon was sloppy and ham handed too.

So Natural Born Killers was just a terrible movie??I personally really like U-Turn and Savages, and W. was pretty good too.

JFK is hard to top. That's one of the greatest films of the century.

You know, I've always enjoyed JFK. Very compelling movie. But it's been shredded so often by critics for being inaccurate and fabricated, I admit that criticism has tainted my opinion. Still, I think it's Oliver Stone's best movie.

 

[johnnycakes]

The missus and I went to see this movie this afternoon. I thought it was the best movie I have seen in a long, long time. Two thumbs up.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The missus and I went to see this movie this afternoon. I thought it was the best movie I have seen in a long, long time. Two thumbs up.

I don't think Mrs. Dogg can handle this one.

 

[kutta]

The missus and I went to see this movie this afternoon. I thought it was the best movie I have seen in a long, long time. Two thumbs up.

I don't think Mrs. Dogg can handle this one.

You might be surprised. I didn't think Mrs. Kutta would like it either, but she loved it and actually encouraged our teens to see it. I was

 

[drummer]

You haven't answered my question

What did people refer to black people as in the mid 19th century?

That isn't a serious question, because it isn't a period slur. It's still used when referring to African American people this century. What I find odd? People more sensitive to my criticism of Tarantino using that word than being sensitive to the word itself.

I can't speak for any other poster here, but this is so not true for me. I don't think Tarantino is some kind of infallible deity that should never be questioned or criticized.

I think that any film director should do better than his last film, and that's an unrealistic expectation. The Godfather Part III should had never been made, and Garden's of Stone was just as bad from Coppola. But it's even more unrealistic to think that Oliver Stone can do better than JFK. He has been pretty horrid since. But at least he has JFK, and I think Platoon was sloppy and ham handed too.

So Natural Born Killers was just a terrible movie??I personally really like U-Turn and Savages, and W. was pretty good too.

JFK is hard to top. That's one of the greatest films of the century.

You know, I've always enjoyed JFK. Very compelling movie. But it's been shredded so often by critics for being inaccurate and fabricated, I admit that criticism has tainted my opinion. Still, I think it's Oliver Stone's best movie.

What did David Lee Roth say about music critics? The reason why they don't like their music id because they all look like Elvis Costello? Or something like that.Was Braveheart historically accurate? Did Commodus slay Marcus Aurelius? Both won Oscars for Best Picture, with Mel Gibson winning Best Director for Braveheart, and Ridley Scott nominated for the same category for Gladiator. Would Pauline Kael have influenced you with her critique of any of these films?

Kinda find it odd that the critique of 'creative license' in a movie based on historic periods or persons enjoys a movie with Hitler being gunned down in a movie theater by the director of Hostel, which takes the enjoyment of JFK's pacing, acting, editing, scoring, etc. away from you. Really find that odd.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The missus and I went to see this movie this afternoon. I thought it was the best movie I have seen in a long, long time. Two thumbs up.

I don't think Mrs. Dogg can handle this one.

You might be surprised. I didn't think Mrs. Kutta would like it either, but she loved it and actually encouraged our teens to see it. I was

Mrs. Dogg likes a lot of the Tarantino movies, but I think the slave violence would be too much for her.

 

[jdoggydogg]

You haven't answered my question

What did people refer to black people as in the mid 19th century?

That isn't a serious question, because it isn't a period slur. It's still used when referring to African American people this century. What I find odd? People more sensitive to my criticism of Tarantino using that word than being sensitive to the word itself.

I can't speak for any other poster here, but this is so not true for me. I don't think Tarantino is some kind of infallible deity that should never be questioned or criticized.

I think that any film director should do better than his last film, and that's an unrealistic expectation. The Godfather Part III should had never been made, and Garden's of Stone was just as bad from Coppola. But it's even more unrealistic to think that Oliver Stone can do better than JFK. He has been pretty horrid since. But at least he has JFK, and I think Platoon was sloppy and ham handed too.

So Natural Born Killers was just a terrible movie??I personally really like U-Turn and Savages, and W. was pretty good too.

JFK is hard to top. That's one of the greatest films of the century.

You know, I've always enjoyed JFK. Very compelling movie. But it's been shredded so often by critics for being inaccurate and fabricated, I admit that criticism has tainted my opinion. Still, I think it's Oliver Stone's best movie.

What did David Lee Roth say about music critics? The reason why they don't like their music id because they all look like Elvis Costello? Or something like that.Was Braveheart historically accurate? Did Commodus slay Marcus Aurelius? Both won Oscars for Best Picture, with Mel Gibson winning Best Director for Braveheart, and Ridley Scott nominated for the same category for Gladiator. Would Pauline Kael have influenced you with her critique of any of these films?

Kinda find it odd that the critique of 'creative license' in a movie based on historic periods or persons enjoys a movie with Hitler being gunned down in a movie theater by the director of Hostel, which takes the enjoyment of JFK's pacing, acting, editing, scoring, etc. away from you. Really find that odd.

I am with you on a lot of this. I don't look to movies as a substitute for history lessons. I liked all the movies you mentioned - including JFK. Much as we all like to fancy ourselves as iconoclasts, sometimes doubt can creep in, that's all.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

What did David Lee Roth say about music critics? The reason why they don't like their music id because they all look like Elvis Costello? Or something like that.

It was more like "The reason why most rock critics love Elvis Costello is that most rock critics look like Elvis Costello."

 

[cstu]

The missus and I went to see this movie this afternoon. I thought it was the best movie I have seen in a long, long time. Two thumbs up.

I don't think Mrs. Dogg can handle this one.

You might be surprised. I didn't think Mrs. Kutta would like it either, but she loved it and actually encouraged our teens to see it. I was

Mrs. Dogg likes a lot of the Tarantino movies, but I think the slave violence would be too much for her.

She might catch the vapors.

 

[cstu]

Just finished watching it...I'd classify it as 90% brilliant film and 10% cheesy camp. Most of the comedy was great but there's a thin line between comedy and camp and I thought it went too far a few times.

 

[cstu]

I don't think Tarantino films are trying to make a point, they're just telling interesting and entertaining made up stories

People are seriously arguing about whether Tarantino was snubbed for not being nominated for Best Director. The film was nominated for Best Picture. jdoggy's persistent defense of QT suggests that he, at least, thinks there's something more to QT than a guy who make mindless action popcorn flicks.This link, IMO, sort of gets to the heart of what is wrong with Tarantino's later movies, particulary Django and Inglorious Basterds. Or, at least, it explains why those films upset people who take the Holocaust and slavery-two of the greatest human evils of all time-seriously. Tarantino is making "alternate history"-and in doing so he is implicitly arguing that stories that deal with the very real, very messy realities of those situations don't interest him. He's interested in using those events as backdrops where a lone hero, or a small group, kick righteous ### in the pursuit of revenge. We stand at something of a remove from World War II and the evils of Nazism. And most of us are similarly removed from the pre-Confederate South. But there is something trivializing about playing an Uncle Tom character or the KKK for laughs while at the same time ramping up the extreme violence of slavery (and use of the N-word)for shock value.If the earlier posted thesis (that Tarantino is representing a world where such revenge fantasies are actually recorded history and his later characters are molded by that) is correct, it still raises the question of whether that conceit is really worthy of a nearly twenty year film career. That's a lot of energy to expend on a pretty banal point.

Why am I surprised that a New Yorker writer doesn't get it?Personally, I found the way slavery was depicted in DU to be far more horrific than even Roots - mainly because of how happy every single non-German white person seemed to be.

 

[cstu]

I'm surprised at how many people were disappointed with Dicaprio - I thought he nailed it.

 

[johnnycakes]

I'm surprised at how many people were disappointed with Dicaprio - I thought he nailed it.

I thought DiCaprio was very good; as good as he could have been in that role. That said, he was a bit young to be a brutal plantation owner. For Candie I would have cast someone a little older and more hardened, like Bruce Willis. And the movie really wasn't anywhere near as violent or disturbing as it could have been, given the plot.

 

[pantagrapher]

I'm surprised at how many people were disappointed with Dicaprio - I thought he nailed it.

I thought DiCaprio was very good; as good as he could have been in that role. That said, he was a bit young to be a brutal plantation owner. For Candie I would have cast someone a little older and more hardened, like Bruce Willis.

And the movie really wasn't anywhere near as violent or disturbing as it could have been, given the plot.

They made it clear he inherited the plantation from his daddy. I think that's what made him more effective: he's inherited his wealth, a wealth built on slave labor, yet he attributes his status not to violent exploitation or luck, but to biological superiority. This is the sick pathology that allows him to watch a black man be torn apart by dogs or two slaves forced to fight to the death without batting an eye.

 

[pantagrapher]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

 

[johnnycakes]

I'm surprised at how many people were disappointed with Dicaprio - I thought he nailed it.

I thought DiCaprio was very good; as good as he could have been in that role. That said, he was a bit young to be a brutal plantation owner. For Candie I would have cast someone a little older and more hardened, like Bruce Willis.

And the movie really wasn't anywhere near as violent or disturbing as it could have been, given the plot.

They made it clear he inherited the plantation from his daddy. I think that's what made him more effective: he's inherited his wealth, a wealth built on slave labor, yet he attributes his status not to violent exploitation or luck, but to biological superiority. This is the sick pathology that allows him to watch a black man be torn apart by dogs or two slaves forced to fight to the death without batting an eye.

You put a lot more thought into the movie than I did, I'll give you that. Still, I can't help but think the bit about Candie inheriting the plantation was done simply to adapt the role to the young DiCaprio. As for the rest of the about sick pathology.... that could have been done just as effectively, if not moreso, with an older plantation owner.

 

[mon]

So, was Christoph Waltz's last act one of pride or vengeance or was it a selfless act for Foxx and his girl? Or possibly all three?

 

[pantagrapher]

So, was Christoph Waltz's last act one of pride or vengeance or was it a selfless act for Foxx and his girl? Or possibly all three?

No way it was a selfless act, as it virtually assured they'd all be killed. That was one aspect I found the film lacking: too much bad guys getting killed on the spot while the heros get a series of unlikely second chances.

 

[mon]

So, was Christoph Waltz's last act one of pride or vengeance or was it a selfless act for Foxx and his girl? Or possibly all three?

No way it was a selfless act, as it virtually assured they'd all be killed. That was one aspect I found the film lacking: too much bad guys getting killed on the spot while the heros get a series of unlikely second chances.

Ok, maybe shooting DiCaprio wasn't selfless, but I guess there were two final acts: the first being shooting DiCaprio, the second being opening himself up and basically begging Remar to shoot him, taking the focus off Foxx to at least give him a chance.

 

[cstu]

I'm surprised at how many people were disappointed with Dicaprio - I thought he nailed it.

I thought DiCaprio was very good; as good as he could have been in that role. That said, he was a bit young to be a brutal plantation owner. For Candie I would have cast someone a little older and more hardened, like Bruce Willis.

And the movie really wasn't anywhere near as violent or disturbing as it could have been, given the plot.

They made it clear he inherited the plantation from his daddy. I think that's what made him more effective: he's inherited his wealth, a wealth built on slave labor, yet he attributes his status not to violent exploitation or luck, but to biological superiority. This is the sick pathology that allows him to watch a black man be torn apart by dogs or two slaves forced to fight to the death without batting an eye.

 

[cstu]

So, was Christoph Waltz's last act one of pride or vengeance or was it a selfless act for Foxx and his girl? Or possibly all three?

No way it was a selfless act, as it virtually assured they'd all be killed. That was one aspect I found the film lacking: too much bad guys getting killed on the spot while the heros get a series of unlikely second chances.

Ok, maybe shooting DiCaprio wasn't selfless, but I guess there were two final acts: the first being shooting DiCaprio, the second being opening himself up and basically begging Remar to shoot him, taking the focus off Foxx to at least give him a chance.

Shooting Candie was the culmination of all the hatred Schultz had against slavery. They would have walked out of there if Schultz could have shaken hands with Candie, but he couldn't do it.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The missus and I went to see this movie this afternoon. I thought it was the best movie I have seen in a long, long time. Two thumbs up.

I don't think Mrs. Dogg can handle this one.

You might be surprised. I didn't think Mrs. Kutta would like it either, but she loved it and actually encouraged our teens to see it. I was

Mrs. Dogg likes a lot of the Tarantino movies, but I think the slave violence would be too much for her.

She might catch the vapors.

She can handle violence in small doses. She liked Reservoir Dogs a lot, but wanted to walk out during the torture scene. I convinced her to stay and she was glad she did.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm surprised at how many people were disappointed with Dicaprio - I thought he nailed it.

 

[mon]

So, was Christoph Waltz's last act one of pride or vengeance or was it a selfless act for Foxx and his girl? Or possibly all three?

No way it was a selfless act, as it virtually assured they'd all be killed. That was one aspect I found the film lacking: too much bad guys getting killed on the spot while the heros get a series of unlikely second chances.

Ok, maybe shooting DiCaprio wasn't selfless, but I guess there were two final acts: the first being shooting DiCaprio, the second being opening himself up and basically begging Remar to shoot him, taking the focus off Foxx to at least give him a chance.

Shooting Candie was the culmination of all the hatred Schultz had against slavery. They would have walked out of there if Schultz could have shaken hands with Candie, but he couldn't do it.

Yep, vengeance was the primary reason, IMO. This being the major climax of the movie, I thought it merited some discussion. I enjoyed seeing Waltz as a hero as opposed to the villain he was in Inglorious Bastards.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Saw this a few days ago, loved it. It struck me as easily most comparable to the Kill Bill's than any other Tarantino film(s) although I thought it was better than those. Id have to see it a couple times more to be sure, but Id probably say its my 4th favorite QT film after Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs. That said, I could also see myself being in the mood where I would choose to watch Django over the others. Thought the acting was very good all around, but for me Waltz owned this and basically made it his film and is the only one Id say is deserving of Oscar consideration/nomination (which he did get). The one thing Im surprised about is how many people were clamoring in here about SLJ's performance. It was nice and funny for what it was, but totally expendable and not all that memorable IMO. I honestly forgot that he was in Django until his character showed up. Any movie that's almost 3 hours long is not gonna feel short, but it did seem like time went by quickly and it didnt feel like it was as long as it was. A well deserved Oscar nom for best picture too but Im surprised QT didnt get nominated for best director.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I'm surprised at how many people were disappointed with Dicaprio - I thought he nailed it.

I thought DiCaprio was very good; as good as he could have been in that role. That said, he was a bit young to be a brutal plantation owner. For Candie I would have cast someone a little older and more hardened, like Bruce Willis.

And the movie really wasn't anywhere near as violent or disturbing as it could have been, given the plot.

They made it clear he inherited the plantation from his daddy. I think that's what made him more effective: he's inherited his wealth, a wealth built on slave labor, yet he attributes his status not to violent exploitation or luck, but to biological superiority. This is the sick pathology that allows him to watch a black man be torn apart by dogs or two slaves forced to fight to the death without batting an eye.

You put a lot more thought into the movie than I did, I'll give you that. Still, I can't help but think the bit about Candie inheriting the plantation was done simply to adapt the role to the young DiCaprio. As for the rest of the about sick pathology.... that could have been done just as effectively, if not moreso, with an older plantation owner.

Im trying to picture Bruce Willis in this role and I think it might have ruined the entire 2nd half of the movie. Older plantation owner I wouldnt disagree with, Willis no.

 

[kutta]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

 

[JZilla]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

I pretty much agree with pretty good. Had its good points and bad. Certainly entertaining.

 

[jdoggydogg]

2 Live Crew's Luther Campbell chooses sides in the great Spike Lee-Quentin Tarantino debates

Though asked for his opinion by no one, all-around great American and free-speech champion Luther "Uncle Luke" Campbell—late of the censorship-game pioneers 2 Live Crew, pictured third from the left, bottom row—has written a piece for the Miami New Times lauding Quentin Tarantino's slavery epic Django Unchained and lambasting director Spike Lee for talking #### about Tarantino. The piece eloquently begins, "Screw Spike Lee," and goes on to accuse Lee of being both "bougie" and "a conniving and scheming Uncle Tom." (Bit of an overreaction, that last one, eh?) Campbell also goes on to find meanings in Django that are perhaps even more than Tarantino intended, likening Jamie Foxx's character riding a horse to a rich black man driving a Bentley. (Tarantino, somewhere, sighs happily: "Finally. Somebody gets me.") Anyway, it's a hilarious read in its way, and will be even funnier when Tarantino casts Campbell opposite Samuel L. Jackson in 2019's Pulpier Fiction: The Return Of Jules.

The article:Spike Lee Is No Quentin Tarantino

Uncle Luke, the man whose booty-shaking madness made the U.S. Supreme Court stand up for free speech gets as nasty as he wants to be for Miami New Times. This week, Luke reviews the controversy surrounding Django Unchained. (WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)

Screw Spike Lee. Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is a brilliant flick that more accurately depicts the African American experience than any of the 15 movies about black culture Lee's directed in his lifetime. It's why the movie took home a Golden Globe award for best screenplay over the weekend and why it was recently nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture.

Since Django Unchained hit the theaters, Lee has been publicly trashing Tarantino. In announcing his personal boycott of the movie, the Do The Right Thing filmmaker tweeted, "American slavery was not a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western," and "It Was A Holocaust. My Ancestors Are Slaves. Stolen From Africa. I Will Honor Them."

Lee needs to get over himself. He's upset because Tarantino makes better movies. The man who put Malcolm X on the big screen is Hollywood's resident house negro; a bougie activist who wants to tell his fellow white auteurs how they can and can't depict African Americans.

He complains that Tarantino uses "######" too much (100 times) in Django Unchained, but show me a white man in the 1800s who wasn't dropping n-bombs left and right.

Tarantino is one of Tinseltown's most clever directors. Some of the most brutal scenes in Django Unchained are metaphors for the unfair racial inequality African-Americans still experience today. For instance, Leonardio DiCaprio's plantation owner character Calvin Candie trains some of his male slaves to fight to the death in a sport called "Mandingo Fighting."

When one of the slaves refuses to fight, Candie threatens to feed him to his wild dogs. That scene is analogous to professional boxing where white promoters control black fighters through fear and intimidation.

In another scene, a bunch of slaves are shocked to see Django riding a horse since blacks were never allowed to have one. That's like the cops who stare at and then pull over the dude who is driving a Bentley on South Beach.

While on the horse, Django tells the slaves that he'll treat them worse than any white man ever will. That's the truth about blacks in positions of authority in today's corporate America. They will treat blacks worse than any white boss every could.

Lee could never pull off a movie like this. When he's not being an ### from his court side seats during New York Knicks games, he's making bull crap films that most African Americans cannot relate to.

Spike is upset because Samuel L. Jackson's character in the movie is just like him: a conniving and scheming Uncle Tom.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I was waiting to hear what Luther Campbell had to say before I plunked down my hard-earned money to see this. Now I feel much more comfortable heading to the theater this weekend.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I was waiting to hear what Luther Campbell had to say before I plunked down my hard-earned money to see this. Now I feel much more comfortable heading to the theater this weekend.

Precisely. Now that's he's been heard from, the world can finally rest.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I was waiting to hear what Luther Campbell had to say before I plunked down my hard-earned money to see this. Now I feel much more comfortable heading to the theater this weekend.

As the guy who convinced the Supreme Court that his cover of Oh, Pretty Women was actually a trenchant parody of the outdated social mores expressed in Roy Orbison's original, Luther is just the guy to explore the more subtle metaphorical dimensions of QT's work.

 

[pantagrapher]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

 

[Fennis]

So, was Christoph Waltz's last act one of pride or vengeance or was it a selfless act for Foxx and his girl? Or possibly all three?

No way it was a selfless act, as it virtually assured they'd all be killed. That was one aspect I found the film lacking: too much bad guys getting killed on the spot while the heros get a series of unlikely second chances.

that's QTs stylistic choice. This is the case in pretty much all his films.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I was waiting to hear what Luther Campbell had to say before I plunked down my hard-earned money to see this. Now I feel much more comfortable heading to the theater this weekend.

As the guy who convinced the Supreme Court that his cover of Oh, Pretty Women was actually a trenchant parody of the outdated social mores expressed in Roy Orbison's original, Luther is just the guy to explore the more subtle metaphorical dimensions of QT's work.

I'm guessing Cambell used different words to argue the case than that?

 

[pantagrapher]

So, was Christoph Waltz's last act one of pride or vengeance or was it a selfless act for Foxx and his girl? Or possibly all three?

No way it was a selfless act, as it virtually assured they'd all be killed. That was one aspect I found the film lacking: too much bad guys getting killed on the spot while the heros get a series of unlikely second chances.

that's QTs stylistic choice. This is the case in pretty much all his films.

And I can dig that. But in this scene, for example, it completely undercuts the characters. Suddenly the smartest guy in the film, the one who always acts deliberately and judiciously, up and shoots a guy over his insistence on a handshake (which insistence in itself was weird), likely knowing it means he and Django and his wife will all die because of it?It's one thing to have that comic book quality. I can appreciate that. But this #### made no sense.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

I can kind of see where you both are coming from here. On one hand, no one makes movies like Tarantino. On the other hand, you have to compare this to his other efforts - and a movie like Inglourious Basterds was more ambitious and more worthy of a best picture nod.

 

[cstu]

So, was Christoph Waltz's last act one of pride or vengeance or was it a selfless act for Foxx and his girl? Or possibly all three?

No way it was a selfless act, as it virtually assured they'd all be killed. That was one aspect I found the film lacking: too much bad guys getting killed on the spot while the heros get a series of unlikely second chances.

that's QTs stylistic choice. This is the case in pretty much all his films.

And I can dig that. But in this scene, for example, it completely undercuts the characters. Suddenly the smartest guy in the film, the one who always acts deliberately and judiciously, up and shoots a guy over his insistence on a handshake (which insistence in itself was weird), likely knowing it means he and Django and his wife will all die because of it?It's one thing to have that comic book quality. I can appreciate that. But this #### made no sense.

There were a lot of signs leading up to him shooting Candie - his reaction to the mandingo fighting, his offer to pay to save the guy's life who was then killed by the dogs, etc. Finally Candie pushed him too far with the handshake - which made sense from Candie's POV since he wanted to prove that he's in control.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Thought it was another greatTarantino film. Loved the Francisco Nero cameo. Laughed out loud several times. Terrible acting by QT, but he makes an enjoyable film.

 

[Daywalker]

I liked how Foxx put it. Quentin has cred."The question for me is: where's Spike Lee coming from?" he said. "He didn't like Whoopi Goldberg, he doesn't like Tyler Perry, he doesn't like anybody, I think he's sort of run his course. I mean, I respect Spike, he's a fantastic director. But he gets a little shady when he's taking shots at his colleagues without looking at the work. To me, that's irresponsible." Foxx noted that, for years, Hollywood has celebrated white people who told black stories or sang black songs. "But you got to look at the individual cases," said the actor. "When Pat Boone covered Little Richard, you think, 'Huh?', he's got no affinity for it. Good Golly Miss Molly? I don't think so. But you can't tell me that Eminem ain't hot 'cos he's white or that Elvis Presley isn't a bad mother####er, or that Quentin Tarantino can't do whatever he likes, 'cos damn straight he can."

 

[drummer]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

I can kind of see where you both are coming from here. On one hand, no one makes movies like Tarantino. On the other hand, you have to compare this to his other efforts - and a movie like Inglourious Basterds was more ambitious and more worthy of a best picture nod.

 

[tommyboy]

Great movie will watch again

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

A little long, but does more to undo the whitewashing of slavery in American cinema/history/culture than any film before it. Lots of really heady ideas about race, class, and the American soul that no major-release film has posed before. There are more than a few scenes that would be perfect teaching tools in a critical race theory class.

 

[jdoggydogg]

A little long, but does more to undo the whitewashing of slavery in American cinema/history/culture than any film before it. Lots of really heady ideas about race, class, and the American soul that no major-release film has posed before. There are more than a few scenes that would be perfect teaching tools in a critical race theory class.

 

[17seconds]

I said this before but I just feel like saying it again....Tarantino needs to do something different. The last 5 movies he's done (Django, Inglorious Basterds, Death Proof, Kill Bill v2, Kill Bill v1) are following someone on a quest to kill people. I like them all, but he needs to come up with a new type of storyline.EDIT: I feel like he isn't using his all his skills to creatively contruct a plot or relationship between characters like he did with his first 3 films. Going on a killing quest with a linear storyline and just changing the backdrop and themes is starting to get old.

 

[kutta]

I said this before but I just feel like saying it again....Tarantino needs to do something different. The last 5 movies he's done (Django, Inglorious Basterds, Death Proof, Kill Bill v2, Kill Bill v1) are following someone on a quest to kill people. I like them all, but he needs to come up with a new type of storyline.EDIT: I feel like he isn't using his all his skills to creatively contruct a plot or relationship between characters like he did with his first 3 films. Going on a killing quest with a linear storyline and just changing the backdrop and themes is starting to get old.

I have loved all the films you mentioned, but I agree with your point too. It would be nice for him to do something completely different.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I said this before but I just feel like saying it again....Tarantino needs to do something different. The last 5 movies he's done (Django, Inglorious Basterds, Death Proof, Kill Bill v2, Kill Bill v1) are following someone on a quest to kill people. I like them all, but he needs to come up with a new type of storyline.EDIT: I feel like he isn't using his all his skills to creatively contruct a plot or relationship between characters like he did with his first 3 films. Going on a killing quest with a linear storyline and just changing the backdrop and themes is starting to get old.

I have loved all the films you mentioned, but I agree with your point too. It would be nice for him to do something completely different.

Maybe adapt another Elmore Leonard novel. That worked out well with Jackie Brown.

 

[Fennis]

I liked how Foxx put it. Quentin has cred."The question for me is: where's Spike Lee coming from?" he said. "He didn't like Whoopi Goldberg, he doesn't like Tyler Perry, he doesn't like anybody, I think he's sort of run his course. I mean, I respect Spike, he's a fantastic director. But he gets a little shady when he's taking shots at his colleagues without looking at the work. To me, that's irresponsible." Foxx noted that, for years, Hollywood has celebrated white people who told black stories or sang black songs. "But you got to look at the individual cases," said the actor. "When Pat Boone covered Little Richard, you think, 'Huh?', he's got no affinity for it. Good Golly Miss Molly? I don't think so. But you can't tell me that Eminem ain't hot 'cos he's white or that Elvis Presley isn't a bad mother####er, or that Quentin Tarantino can't do whatever he likes, 'cos damn straight he can."

Spike Lee deserves a lot of credit for not liking Whoopi and Tyler Perry.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I liked how Foxx put it. Quentin has cred."The question for me is: where's Spike Lee coming from?" he said. "He didn't like Whoopi Goldberg, he doesn't like Tyler Perry, he doesn't like anybody, I think he's sort of run his course. I mean, I respect Spike, he's a fantastic director. But he gets a little shady when he's taking shots at his colleagues without looking at the work. To me, that's irresponsible." Foxx noted that, for years, Hollywood has celebrated white people who told black stories or sang black songs. "But you got to look at the individual cases," said the actor. "When Pat Boone covered Little Richard, you think, 'Huh?', he's got no affinity for it. Good Golly Miss Molly? I don't think so. But you can't tell me that Eminem ain't hot 'cos he's white or that Elvis Presley isn't a bad mother####er, or that Quentin Tarantino can't do whatever he likes, 'cos damn straight he can."

Spike Lee deserves a lot of credit for not liking Whoopi and Tyler Perry.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.