Django Unchained - Pre-Release - Page 3

 

I don't really care about this sort of thing, but it doesn't make sense for someone who hasn't seen the movie to start a post-release thread.

For awhile, I thought, oh, it's one of the Gossip Girls! I guess she won't be gossiping in this movie!

Dude I'm sorry your posts are just chock full of spoilers. Talking about how the film switches gears once so and so happens, or listing shocking moments and lines, ETC.

That is all stuff you wouldn't know just from the ads, hence, you are spoiling it for those who want to go in fresh. Or at least you're spoiling it for me. The entire reason I came to Chud in the first place was your strict spoiler policy on the Game of Thrones thread.

Really?

Man, you're gonna hate the James Brown dance scene!*

 

I'm never good with these sorts of things, but I've of mind that Tarantino is one of the great filmmakers, and there's no way someone can "spoil" a Tarantino film. It's gonna be awesome on the first or fiftieth viewing.

 

*does not happen

 

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I'm not sure some random character you don't know being torn apart by dogs is that big a spoiler. Most of the other stuff mentioned you can get from the trailers. Still, I don't want to outright spoil any plot points for anyone, so I'll try to keep that in mind.

 

Gabe, maybe you can confirm something I noticed from one of the trailers?

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I THINK so. Not much screen time for that one.

I would like to know about a couple of cameo's and supporting roles but is that gonna be considered a spoiler now?  Not their fate or even where they appear; just how big or significant their role is since this is a pretty big ensemble.  Anyway I'll post their names in spoiler tags in case someone hasn't read the IMDb cast list and you know complains that you've spoiled it by saying who's all in it.

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Is it weird that I agree with both sides of this?  I honestly don't think Gabe has spoiled anything that I would think of as a spoiler, and I think people are being pretty good about using spoiler text, but I also agree that this is just dancing on the edge and that really somebody who has seen the movie should start a post release thread where details can be talked about?  It seems innocent enough that somebody wants there to be a differentiation between the pre-release and the post-release threads and this one seems to quickly be turning into both.

 

Not at all. I agree, I don't think anyone has given much away of anything. And if they had, I'd be the one complaining (I didn't read the script for a reason). But we are kinda dancing up to the edge a little bit. My only point was that it's probably up to someone who's seen the film to start a post-release thread. Not that I think Gabe ought to, or that he shouldn't be "allowed" to post what he's posting or whatever (as long as it stays in the vein it's been in). 

I don't know, I think Gabe's ridden the line pretty well regarding spoilers. What I've read has if anything made me look forward to the film more - I don't know if QT has ever done a truly ANGRY film, and it sounds like something that'll be impressive to behold even if it's not perfect.

Having read the script a few times already (every so often I just pull up the PDF to savor the writing, it's that good), I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's no way this thing isn't going to spark a LOT of discussion once it drops. It'll be talked about well into next year. What some have said about the actual film's pacing may be correct, but it reads beautifully and it's a classic straight-up great yarn.

If anyone cares, Jeff Wells was mixed on it:

"I don't want to break the rules by riffing or reviewing, but it's a complete Tarantino wankathon, a '70s spaghetti western "southern", about as un-period as it could possibly be, pop tunes on the soundtrack (including Richie Havens' "Freedom"), 2 hours and 45 minutes long (and a really talky second hour that has to be experienced to be believed), sadistic and blunt, semi-"thoughtful", comedic and smirking and about as cinematically sincere as an SNL skit, pockmarked with occasional fast-zoom shots, incredibly impressed with itself, howlingly funny at times, silly, stupid, undisciplined, simultaneously Mandingo-esque and an anti-Mandingo, tedious, a hoot, astonishing at times and too effing long. But at least it's not three hours, which it allegedly was a while back."

Hmmm.  So this is totally NOT sounding like a movie to take my mother to on Christmas Day, is it?  (Caveat:  she liked both PULP and JACKIE BROWN).  

They're all in it, but I don't think the last two even speak.

LOTS of faces show up in this movie with NO lines. Is there an eight hour cut of Django Unchained out there?

Jeff Wells kind of hates Tarantino. But he's not off the mark.

 

PM me.

I wouldn't take anyone's mother to this.

 

In a film this long I'd have thought a lot of those guys (and other cameos) would at least have some speaking parts and stuff to do.  I guess they are more or less extras, but rather than cast extras he cast his friends and other semi-famous actors.

It's not like he's never done that before. I remember hearing about Sam Levine being cast in "Inglourious Basterds" and looking forward to seeing him show some of the comedic (and dramatic) chops he'd demonstrated in "Freaks & Geeks".

 

In the end, I don't think he had a single line in the movie. The only moment I remember of him was a cut to him and another soldier laughing at something Brad Pitt says. I know he originally had more to do that was cut (i.e. running with guns blazing, as in the trailer), but it doesn't look like he'd have been in the movie much, even if some of his stuff hadn't been cut.

 

I'll never understand people casting gifted comedic actors and then giving them zilch to do. Another example is Kal Penn as a henchmen in "Superman Returns". He has maybe two lines, and spends the rest of the movie looking befuddled and being generally worthless with the rest of Lex Luthor's gang.

How about Franco Nero?  How big is his part?

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I think I'm even more anxious for this now. Have to say, every Tarantino movie I've seen in a theater, the reactions have been remarkable, even my matinee viewing of Inglourious Basterds packed with senior citizens.

 

Sorry to continue the 20 questions, but I'm curious about Kerry Washington. Do they give her anything to do or she mostly just there as Django's motivation?

Stoked for this. Gabe, how was Walt Goggins?

From the sound of things, he's probably going to end up behind a tree, thinking quietly.

 

In the script, she's pretty much just there to be rescued. She did have smallish plotline involving another character, but apparently that wasn't included in the film.

 

There was some other stuff too, wasn't there?  Some character moments demonstrating her intelligence, her feisty nature, and stuff like that?

 

I honestly don't remember. I know the Scotty plotine probably involved the bulk of her screen time, but that's not going to be in the movie. My guess is there will be some new scenes involving her and Candie.

Eh, the former.

 

Pretty good, but it's not a sizeable role. He gets to be racist and threatening - called to mind the sort of roles Goggins used to play in smaller movies years ago.

I fucking loved this movie- it may well be my favorite Tarantino movie. It makes a delightful pairing with Inglourious Basterds, with both tackling atrocities and both featuring a sort of subtly refined maturation of his audacious style. I like where his filmmaking is at. The movie is hilarious, violent, moving, beautifully acted, unapologetic, dynamic, ostentatious without crossing into self-indulgent, and ultimately just a goddamned blast. I would have watched it again the moment the credits rolled without leaving my seat, and I can't wait to see it again. 

 

I'm not going to say people who called chunks of it overlong or levied other criticisms are wrong- all I can say is that the movie broadcasted at exactly my wavelength and I was never not 100% fully on board. I ate up every frame, and haven't seen a more deliciously watchable movie this year.

 

Also, I think it's going to do very well. I only saw it with a small theater full of about half old/stuffy critics and other half public, and the thing played. A little clapping, a little laughing, but really it was just the energy in the room and the sense of shared exhilaration coming out.

I saw it today, and liked it, but maybe because the American South is less foreign to me, it seemed more straightforward than IB, which I guess I just wanted an American version of.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Is there a Post Release thread for this yet? I'm not going to bother seeing it but I'd be interested to read spoilers.

That's... sort of a weird attitude. But whatever floats your boat.

Why are you not going to watch the film?

 

I haven't enjoyed a Quentin Tarantino movie since 1997 (although, to be fair, I've never finished Death Proof). Still, I'm interested to read spoilers just so I understand all of the references people make online later.

 

I'll keep my eye out for a Post Release thread whenever it appears.

I hear this is disappointing. 

From where? I don't think I've seen anything negative about it yet.

From my friends who have seen it. 

Oh, gotcha

Meandering and tonally off-putting considering the subject matter seems to be the general consensus. And this is from Tarantino fans. 

Well, I trust some of the positive word of mouth I've read, but I guess we'll see in a few weeks.

The "meandering" comments concern me more than the tonal issues, but neither are particularly alarming to me.

Didn't some people say the same things about BASTERDS?

As well as Kill Bill, I'm sure.  Especially with regard to the tonal thing, which is why it doesn't concern me in the slightest.  The script seemed to happily bounce between classic Western, Blazing Saddles level comedy, scenes of horrific exploitation films, etc... 

Critic Robert Koehler says that DJANGO UNCHAINED is Tarantino's best and the best American film of the year.

Positively licking my lips in anticipation for this. Everyone is saying it's very good to very great. Considering how much I loved Basterds, it sounds like something might actually challenge Lincoln for best of the year for me, which is not something I thought possible. Sounds like they'll be interesting companion pieces at least.

I want this film NOW.

I have tickets to an advance screening on the 20th. I'm more excited about this than I am about Christmas.

Listening to the piece of music morricone contributed to the soundtrack, I'm getting excited at the idea of him taking home an academy award for best song.

So it's basically INGLORIOUS BASTERDS?

Inglourious Basterds managed to not have horses that curtsey when introduced.

 

I think the term "category fraud" is silly, but "Django Unchained" qualifying as a "drama" has to be the biggest case of that sort of accusation.

Edited by Gabe T - 12/15/12 at 6:54pm