Django Unchained

[Henri Ducard]

Inglorious Basterds is the movie version of Captain America punching Hitler in the face.

[IanTheCool]

Django Unchained is probably Quentin Tarantino's most straight forward film, yet it is also perhaps his most indulgent. This story of a slave who is freed, becomes a bounty hunter, and tries to rescue his wife has a clear-cut arc. But within that arc we get a lot of Tarantino's stylized direction.

The strongest aspect of this movie was the performance of Christoph Waltz (once again). His character Dr. Shultz is, not to put too fine a point on it, the reason this movie works. He is the anchor. He is such a great character, written with tons of wit and played with tons of charm, he makes everything around him fun to watch. I would almost argue that without Dr. Shultz, and without him being played by Waltz, this movie would not have worked nearly as well.

Leonardo DiCaprio has also taken a ballsy role here as the plantation owner Calvin Candy, a domineering bigot. He plays him well, but its Samuel L. Jackson who really shines in the villainous role of his servant Steven. No one can look quite as frighteningly angry on screen as Samuel L.

Now what did I mean about Tarantino being indulgent? He really takes the gruesomeness of slavery and the idea of revenge and takes them to as much extreme as he can. The N-word is dropped a lot, blood splatters are more like geysers, and the unadulterated vengeance inflicted on the slavers. He is very unapologetic about any of this, as you would expect. However, the violence is what threw me off, as Tarantino really seems to be going for a fine line between realistic and over the top, and I don't think he quite found that balance.

The first half of this film is certainly the strongest part. Watching Django and Schultz form their friendship is a lot of fun, and Tarantino seems to revel in the western genre. The second half at the Candy plantation is good also, however the ends start to unravel and the climax isn't quite as tight as it feels like it should have been. The ending goes on for too long, and also reaches Return of the King levels of phantom endings.

I can't help but feel like Tarantino loosened up a little on this one, going too far with the length, the style of violence, and the message. However, we still get that great dialogue and those great long scenes, like the dinner table scene, the bag hole scene , and the saloon scene. It may not be his most solid piece of work, but Django is still a fun ride.
8/10

[Dracula]

Originally Posted by Henri Ducard

Inglorious Basterds is the movie version of Captain America punching Hitler in the face.

The trailer for Inglourious Basterds is that, the actual movie is not.

[Justin]

[Fresh Prince]

Originally Posted by MasterChief117

Apparently his next film is going to be a spin off of Inglorious Basterds. Hmm. Interesting.

Yeah with black soilders going after white soilders for revenge. I would just have former WW2 black soilders now mercs going to different towns in the south and helping people out in the community by killing KKK members. Have it be like the A-Team, but with an all black team. This could be the real men on a mission movie Inglorious Basterds originally was gonna be.

[PsYkOoOoO]

Originally Posted by Henri Ducard

Inglorious Basterds is the movie version of Captain America punching Hitler in the face.

Nien, nien, nien, nien, nien!

[FranklinTard]

So Quentin is just making movies to spite spike lee now eh?

[Neverending]

I watched the Hollywood Reporter's interview with Tarantino and I don't think he's in any rush to make another movie. In fact, he's getting ready for retirement. He says he wants to become a film scholar and is writing two books. One of them is about spaghetti western director Sergio Corbucci (a/k/a the other Sergio) and the other about Don Sigel (Clint Eastwood's go-to director from the late `60s and `70s). He also says he doesn't like that Hollywood is going digital and wants to leave the industry before the Digital Revolution completely takes over. He also seems upset that movie theaters are now mostly screening movies on digital projectors. He doesn't want his movies presented that way. Which comes to show how ridiculous Tarantino can get sometimes. Even Chris Nolan, the leading defender of film, has not complained about this.

BUT, the good news for his fans is that Tarantino is considering make an HBO movie or mini-series. He's one of those people that think television is getting better than cinema. So, who knows, maybe he'll follow Kevin Smith into that world. Smith recently said he wanted to make "Hit Somebody" as a mini-series.

[Fresh Prince]

Why don't he make a HBO series period. It can be a crime drama and rival Boardwalk Empire.

[Neverending]

Tarantino is generally pretty lazy. He has directed 8 movies in 20 years. So, he's not gonna do a TV show.

[FranklinTard]

not really, he writes and directs his own movies, a lot different when you are adapting someone else's script. like for example, rian johnson (does the same thing), has 3 movies in 7 years. adds up to roughly 8 in 20 if he keeps just making his own movies the same way, writing and directing.

i wouldn't call them lazy.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by FranklinTard

not really, he writes and directs his own movies

He's not alone. Kevin Smith, who made his debut two years after Tarantino, has 10 films under his belt and they're all original works. Tarantino, don't forget, made Jackie Brown which was an adaptation. Another good example is The Coen Brothers. Their first feature, Blood Simple, was released only 8 years before Tarantino came into the scene, and they have 16 movies on their filmography. Granted, they're a duo, but Tarantino did write Pulp Fiction with Roger Avary... or at least used one of his scripts as source material. So really, Tarantino only has 6 original films that he wrote by himself. Or 5 if you want to count Kill Bill as one movie. Considering the man has been in the business for 20 years, that's pretty low.

[FranklinTard]

wrote true romance too. and dusk till dawn.

adapting is still quite difficult when you are called on to write the actual script.

i just would not call him lazy. at all. a pseudo perfectionist maybe, but not lazy. and 2 > 1.

[Dracula]

Originally Posted by Neverending

He's not alone. Kevin Smith, who made his debut two years after Tarantino, has 10 films under his belt and they're all original works.

He didn't write Cop Out

[PG Cooper]

Originally Posted by Neverending

He's not alone. Kevin Smith, who made his debut two years after Tarantino, has 10 films under his belt and they're all original works. Tarantino, don't forget, made Jackie Brown which was an adaptation. Another good example is The Coen Brothers. Their first feature, Blood Simple, was released only 8 years before Tarantino came into the scene, and they have 16 movies on their filmography. Granted, they're a duo, but Tarantino did write Pulp Fiction with Roger Avary... or at least used one of his scripts as source material. So really, Tarantino only has 6 original films that he wrote by himself. Or 5 if you want to count Kill Bill as one movie. Considering the man has been in the business for 20 years, that's pretty low.

Tarantino also has a much better batting average than Kevin Smith and I'd say than the Coens as well.

[MovieBuff801]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

Tarantino also has a much better batting average than Kevin Smith and I'd say than the Coens as well.

Agreed.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by FranklinTard

wrote true romance too.

He wrote that before Resevoir Dogs. It's his first script if I'm not mistaken. Either that or Natural Born Killers.

dusk till dawn

He wrote the script, but it was based on someone else's story. Plus, I'm pretty sure Robert Rodriguez wrote all the Titty Twister scenes. That section of the movie is Pure Rodriguez.

a pseudo perfectionist maybe

Perhaps. In the `90s, he was looser. He didn't mind writing scripts for others. He also didn't have a problem with collaborations and adaptations. In addition, he produced movies, like Roger Avary's directorial debut and Four Rooms. And let's not forget his small roles in films like Desperado. But since Jackie Brown, he definitely seems more reserved and calculated. I think the Internet age messed with him. He seems very concerned with having a great filmography on IMDb.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

Tarantino also has a much better batting average than Kevin Smith and I'd say than the Coens as well.

Kevin Smith is a crappy director, but an excellent writer. He's better than Tarantino because he doesn't rely on copy and pasting other people's work. He writes from the heart and from his experiences. And the Coen Bros are WAY better filmmakers than Tarantino. And a lot more diverse too.

[JBond]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

Tarantino also has a much better batting average than Kevin Smith and I'd say than the Coens as well.

No.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by JBond

No.

PG Cooper is referring to "batting average" so I guess he's referring to Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. But as bad as those movies were, I'd say Death Proof is worse.

[Doomsday]

Ah yes, the director-comparing game. I love these.

And none of the aforementioned directors can touch Chris Nolan!! Aha!

*Runs out of thread*

[IanTheCool]

We get it Neverending. You're not a Tarantino fan.

[JBond]

Originally Posted by Neverending

PG Cooper is referring to "batting average" so I guess he's referring to Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. But as bad as those movies were, I'd say Death Proof is worse.

I'm sorry, you need at least 10 ABs to qualify for batting average. Even then, I think the Coen brothers have him beat. Also, who cares about batting average, it's the WAR that's important. (You had to bring baseball into this)

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by Doomsday

Ah yes, the director-comparing game. I love these.

Well, Franklyn is insisting in writer-directors. We don't want to make Tarantino look even worse by throwing in Steven Spielberg.

[PG Cooper]

Originally Posted by Neverending

Kevin Smith is a crappy director, but an excellent writer. He's better than Tarantino because he doesn't rely on copy and pasting other people's work. He writes from the heart and from his experiences. And the Coen Bros are WAY better filmmakers than Tarantino. And a lot more diverse too.

I agree with that.

Originally Posted by Neverending

PG Cooper is referring to "batting average" so I guess he's referring to Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. But as bad as those movies were, I'd say Death Proof is worse.

I was actually referring to Raising Arizona, O Brother Where Art Thou, and A Serious Man. Haven't seen The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty.

Originally Posted by JBond

I'm sorry, you need at least 10 ABs to qualify for batting average. Even then, I think the Coen brothers have him beat. Also, who cares about batting average, it's the WAR that's important. (You had to bring baseball into this)

I'm not saying he's better than the Coens or vice-versa, in fact I'd need to see more Coen Brothers' films before making that sort of claim. But I give Tarantino credit for the consistency of his films.