or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Django Unchained - Post-Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Django Unchained - Post-Release

post #1 of 978
Thread Starter 

I thought I would start a post-release thread, so people can discuss the movie without fear of spoiling it in the Pre-Release thread.

 

I liked Django Unchained, but I was a little disappointed in the overall product.  I've been fine with Tarantino's previous work being homages to his favorite films and genres, but it didn't really seem like he brought much new to the table in this film (other than some contemporary songs for the soundtrack and more blood than the average spaghetti-western).

 

Waltz's performance is truly amazing though.  And I think Tarantino's characterization of Dr. King Schultz might keep me from caring more about Django.  When Schultz exits the film, I really kind of lost a little interest in the resolution of the movie (outside of what happened to Samuel Jackson's character).  In my opinion, all of the characters outside of Dr. King felt kind of like stock characters.  Even Leo's Candy character.  I hoped Django and Brumhilda would have a happy ending, but I still was not nearly invested in them as much as Schultz.

 

Still, I loved the setup and execution of the first hour or so of the movie.  The scene in the first town with the sheriff and the marshal was great.  The montage scene with Jim Croce's "I Got a Name" was amazing.

 

Oh, but Tarantino's role and attempt at an aussie accent was completely unnecessary and distracting in my opinion.

 

What are your thoughts?  I'd say Django Unchained is to Inglorious Basterds, what Jackie Brown is to Pulp Fiction (but I get the feeling Django won't be as fondly remembered as Jackie Brown in the years to come).

post #2 of 978

I need to watch it again to see if I like the third act with different expectations. At times it felt like like the Uma vs. 88s scene in Kill Bill Pt 1: often straightforward action with an invincible hero and gallons of blood. I felt that we needed another scene with Jackson or Goggins to make them a more formidable antagonist, and a more convincing way for Django to escape the Australians (perhaps the other slaves could have helped him).

 

Of course that might go against the sense of Django as a superhero. And a lot of the delight of the film is in that the slaveholders and other villains are fools.

post #3 of 978

As I mentioned in the Pre-Release--I absolutely adored this film. This was the violent, men on a mission film we were promised with Inglorious Basterds, and I feel like it's a far more focused film than Basterd's parallel revenge story lines. 

 

 

 

Quote:
At times it felt like like the Uma vs. 88s scene in Kill Bill Pt 1

That felt intentional, especially when later on when Django is standing on the balcony and does his version of the "Everyone can leave--except for you!!" speech from Kill Bill. Even so, that final gun fight was an absolute blast.

post #4 of 978

Yeah I really loved this. I agree that Waltz was the standout performance, Landa was the showier role but he was equally as good if not better as King Schultz. I'd also throw the speech Candie gives about the dimples in the backs of heads up there with The Sicilians speech as one of Tarantino's best scenes ever.

post #5 of 978

As a fan who casually thinks QT is King Shit Fuck Captain of Awesome Cinema, I think all of his films were made with him needing to prove something. Whereas this was the type of film every great filmmaker has in them when they have a little extra leeway -- they make something awesome that's a bit more self-satisfied, and more of a show-off movie. So I don't think a lot of the movie has much purpose or momentum, thematically or otherwise, but it's pretty awesome. My complaints about the genuine nastiness of the violence and racism feel temporary -- in time I'll watch this again and get into it a little more.

 

Glad to have sat through Samuel L. Jackson's annual reminder that he can act. Sickening character, though.

 

Also dug with the legacy of Broomhilda being a Von Shaft, equating the mythologies of Die Nibelungen with "Shaft In Africa."

post #6 of 978

Goes on too long in the closing 20 minutes. The big shootout was clearly the ending.... until Tarantino thought it needed stretching it. No, no, Django has to be captured, then escape and then return for another big shootout. Wears out its welcome.

 

Good movie overall. Waltz and Jackson are the MVPs.

post #7 of 978

Loved it, unreservedly, though it has a few flaws.

 

I just want to state my love for the final scene between Shucltz and Candie, especially the kicker to the Alexandre Dumas conversation. That was legitimately powerful, in a way that one does not usually associate with Tarantino.

post #8 of 978

This was a cinematic orgasm to me, the cinematography was outstanding, the violence gratuitous, the score glorious. Waltz will get an Oscar nom in my world, and just cracked up like crazy during the scene with the KKK guys and their bag-heads. "I couldn't Resist"= my new favorite moment in 2012 movies
 

post #9 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by bravejoe24 View Post
, and just cracked up like crazy during the scene with the KKK guys and their bag-heads. "

 

"FUCK Y'ALL, I'M GOING HOME!!!"

 

Oh god, I was giggling like mad during that scene.

post #10 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post

Loved it, unreservedly, though it has a few flaws.

 

I just want to state my love for the final scene between Shucltz and Candie, especially the kicker to the Alexandre Dumas conversation. That was legitimately powerful, in a way that one does not usually associate with Tarantino.

 

 

My ignorance of historical figures have provided me with 2 specific moments of extra oomph this year!

 

One was in Lincoln (but I won't spoil that here, just in case).

 

The other was that piece about Dumas.  I had no idea he was black.

 

That scene... that final line.  Waltz truly is the standout.

 

Loved the film.  I can confidently say that I don't think it's as great or as rich as Basterds.  But it was a very satisfying time.  And I don't mind the extended finale AT ALL.  Also, gotta self-servingly give props to QT for tossing in a shout-out to his love for BATTLE ROYALE in there.  And it is without a doubt a homage to Battle Royale.

post #11 of 978
post #12 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chet Ripley View Post

Oh, but Tarantino's role and attempt at an aussie accent was completely unnecessary and distracting in my opinion.

 

 

If he didn't take this out I really don't know what he could have removed from the original 3 hour cut.  This was by far the worst part of the movie.  Guess I'll see when I see it again in the next few days.

post #13 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeShaynePI View Post

 

If he didn't take this out I really don't know what he could have removed from the original 3 hour cut.  This was by far the worst part of the movie.  Guess I'll see when I see it again in the next few days.

 

Was QT the actor you were referring too in the Pre-Release thread?  Because if it is, it's glaringly obvious after the fact.

post #14 of 978

Yes

post #15 of 978

Makes sense, pretty fun movie overall though, tad disappointing because I came in with really high expectations, but came away feeling like Tarantino just wanted to show a black guy kill a bunch of white folks in antebellum South.  Sure, its on par with Jews killing Hitler, but it kind of makes for a boring movie.  A lot of the revenge flicks that he was basing this on seemed to be a lot shorter.  So for him to stretch out the central revenge concept into a 2 hr 45 min movie made it kind of a drag. 

 

I mean the only time there was any thought or second-guessing re killing was with the kid and his dad.  And although I found the kid's reaction to be supremely hilarious, because I can be a twisted fuck, the whole plot could basically be summed up in the line from the trailer, "Kill white people and get paid for it? What's not to like?" Don't get me wrong though, it was a great time at the movies, the acting was superb, the dialogue was snappy, laughs were shared, but it's far from perfect.

post #16 of 978

You know what I loved?  That DiCaprio had his own valet in this movie.

 

I want to see a valet-off between David Warner and James Remar!

 

Also, I was slightly confused for a bit that Remar had two roles in this.  At first I chalked it up to, "Remar just has one of those faces that I can see in most character actors."  Then I thought Butch was somehow related to the guy he played at the beginning of the movie.

post #17 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Goes on too long in the closing 20 minutes. The big shootout was clearly the ending.... until Tarantino thought it needed stretching it. No, no, Django has to be captured, then escape and then return for another big shootout. Wears out its welcome.

 

 

Sure felt like a spaghetti western to me with the fake out ending before the actual ending.

 

I love westerns and I love Tarantino, I'm not going to pretend to be remotely unbiased here.  Loved it so much it's ridiculous.

post #18 of 978

I DO consider myself unbiased as I don't always go ga-ga over Tarantino's stuff. (I think DEATH PROOF is terrible and I don't like BASTERDS as much as everyone else it seems) and I thought this was great. The more it sits with me, the better it gets. This movie was focused in a way that I didn't feel BASTERDS was; it was just so well acted, paced and plotted. There wasn't a moment I wasn't engaged. The story always stayed on the track I wanted it to, but still managed to surprise me. Loved all the performances (except for Tarantino's, but you know, whatever) but Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson were goddamn titans. And Foxx was a perfectly downplayed spaghetti western hero. Top 3 of the year material here for me, a happy surprise in that while I expected it to be good, i didn't expect to love it. 

post #19 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chet Ripley View Post

Oh, but Tarantino's role and attempt at an aussie accent was completely unnecessary and distracting in my opinion.

 

As an enthusiast for shitty attempts at our accent, I look forward to this even more.

post #20 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeShaynePI View Post

Yes

Hey man, I'm not sure if you've seen the theatrical cut yet but I'm trying to get an idea of what was in the 3 hour cut that you saw that didn't make the final cut. I'll list you the scenes that were in the script (and even trailers and soundtrack) and you can tell us if they were in the cut you saw:

The rape scene flashback?
Stephen showing Django to his room at Candyland and getting put in his place by Django?
Stephen interrogating Broomhilda in the kitchen about singing after she gets out of the hot box?
More Billy Crash scenes, including him interrogating the new slaves when they arrive at Candyland?
Extended torture scene in the barn with Stephen burning off Django's nipples?
post #21 of 978

Tarantino's performance is more distracting in that he looks every inch the sun-deprived overweight movie nerd he is and not a credible slaver or whatever he's supposed to be. He's just out of place. Thankfully his screentime is brief. 

post #22 of 978

Brief but explosive!

post #23 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I was slightly confused for a bit that Remar had two roles in this.  At first I chalked it up to, "Remar just has one of those faces that I can see in most character actors." 

 

Yeah, same here.


Franco Nero's cameo made me cringe a bit, but everything else was just great entertainment. Fantastic shootouts. Probably my fave Tarantino movie ever.


"D'Artagnan, motherfuckers!"

post #24 of 978

Nero's cameo was the one thing I could have done without. It was an entirely pointless bit of nerd pandering. 

post #25 of 978

I liked this quite a bit; Samuel L. takes a holiday from his usual phoning in and Waltz is a great match for Tarantinoese.  Foxx gets so many badass moments that I'm wondering if Big Willy Styles has any regrets about turning it down (probably not, but whatever).  The cameos didn't bother me all that much, save Tarantino who should never, ever show up in any movies, let alone his own.

 

I had hoped for more Goggins but will take what I can get.

post #26 of 978

Liked this movie a lot, but GOD DAMN it was an epic. To think the Scotty stuff introducing Calvin that was cut out was like...  20 more pages of script!

post #27 of 978

I wanted to like it more than I actually did.  I thought all the key players were great and thought all the scenes with Dicaprio crackled.  Not nearly as tight as Basterds was, I felt Django's capture and return was tacked on and unnecessary.  I thought Billy Crash would be more formidable.  QT seemed to be laying the groundwork for a showdown between Crash and Django that never really happened.  Even the revelation that Stephen was more physically able then he let on felt wasted. 

 

Question for every body that has seen this:  Do you think Candie was going to let them leave?  My first thought was "no", but why go through the whole rigmarole of getting 'Hilda's papers squared away if Candie never intended on letting them leave?  The more I thought about it, the more I think Candie was going to let them leave.  I think Candie was satisfied with "beating" King and Django, but didn't feel the need to kill them.   I think this is why QT intercutted scenes of King recalling the slave being ripped apart by the dogs...building his disgust and hatred so when he finally does shoot Candie it feels earned (which it didn't, at least to me).   For a guy who was so cool and calculating for the two hours previous up to that moment, it just seems way out of character for him to make that choice.  Essentially it was an action that was going to get him killed, and he had to assume there was a good chance Django and Hilda were going to suffer because of it.

post #28 of 978

He wasn't cool and calm.  He was losing it the entire time, while Django was doing the opposite and being fortified in his purpose by Candie's behavior. 

post #29 of 978
post #30 of 978

Haha, I read that a little while ago. One thing I like about QT is he does seem to like film critics, or at least the ones who worship film at least half as much as he does. He's the rare filmmaker who's actually a frustrated film critic, instead of the other way around. I didn't sense any challenge, more like he relished getting down to the nitty-gritty of plot points with the guy. Plus he's talking about his movie! Win-win!
post #31 of 978

 

Thank you for that.  And I think the plot point is harebrained.

post #32 of 978

According to that article, QT says the reason King makes the decision that he does is because can't give in to Candie.  He can't give Candie the satisfaction.  The movie made it look like a moral choice, like King had to rid the earth of Candie even if it meant sacrificing himself.  Two very different things IMO.  It's silly.  IIRC, James Remar was the only guy with a gun in the room at that moment.  Why not shoot James Remar with the hidden gun, take his weapons and take Candie hostage as a way to exit Candieland?  Or shoot Remar, then shoot Candie if you felt he must die right at that moment.  Either way you're winning and you don't have to shake his hand.  And you are giving yourself (and Django and Hilda) a chance to get away.  It's certainly more theatrical the way it played out, but the movie spent a good two hours illustrating how brilliant a tactician Schultz was, always thinking 5 steps ahead of everybody else, it just seems way way way out of character for him to do what he did.

post #33 of 978

You're missing the point all over the place Bob.  He's SOOOO overwhelmed by disgust for this human being that he HAS to kill him.  He's not cold and calculated and planning and scheming, he's overwhelmed with humanity and passion.  Come on man, you know THAT much. 

post #34 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

 

As an enthusiast for shitty attempts at our accent, I look forward to this even more.

 

Then you'll really enjoy it.  His first line I immediately greeted with "Is he trying an Aussie accent?".  It's that bad.  It's not until the other slavers start talking (all with Aussie accents) that I realized it's what he was doing.  And I'm guessing those slavers were only from Australia because it was the one accent Quentin thought he could pull off.  Each of his painful lines is astounding with how he slips in and out of his poor accent at almost every single word.

post #35 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

You're missing the point all over the place Bob.  He's SOOOO overwhelmed by disgust for this human being that he HAS to kill him.  He's not cold and calculated and planning and scheming, he's overwhelmed with humanity and passion.  Come on man, you know THAT much. 

 

So after years of killing people as a bounty hunter and seeing the horrors of slavery previously and lord knows what else, it's a trip to Candieland that causes him to break?  I don't know.  It's possible I guess.  I just didn't buy it.  He was all packed up, ready to leave but the handshake was the straw that broke the camel's back.  Again, he had risked so much to get to this point, he took Django under his wing, felt responsible for him, wanted him to succeed and start a new life with his wife, he was almost to the finish line...and then he breaks and throws it all away.  For me it was a bridge too far...but I can see why others feel differently.

post #36 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Pathetic View Post

 

 His first line I immediately greeted with "Is he trying an Aussie accent?".  .

 

This was my immediate reaction as well.  I was like "Is he..no..he's not...oh I guess he is trying that".

post #37 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post

 

So after years of killing people as a bounty hunter and seeing the horrors of slavery previously and lord knows what else, it's a trip to Candieland that causes him to break?

 

At what point in his dealings as a bounty hunter did Schultz come across someone who had a human being torn apart by dogs just because he could, do you think?  And then that piece of shit had the gall to insist on a handshake after threatening to bash a defenseless woman's head in.

post #38 of 978

And don't you dare bring up the scene where King was convincing Django to shoot the farmer.  As he explains the man was a MONSTER, and he will have his son by his side when he dies.  It's a lot different than a tortured, tormented begging human being killed slowly, painfully and cruelly. 

post #39 of 978

Loved it, and good lord were Waltz and Tarantino made for each other. It's hard to imagine another actor pulling off that level of arch prose with such ease and charm, and if there's any justice the dude will get another Oscar nod this time around. As others have said, there really isn't a misstep in any of the performances (with perhaps the sole exception of a criminal lack of Goggins), and even though Waltz steals the show Foxx pulls off an admirable Eastwood and imbues a potentially one-note, monotone character with an unmistakable presence that works even with just a look and an expression, though Tarantino hardly leaves him wanting when it comes to great one-liners ("the D is silent, hillbilly" alone makes that extended finale worth it). I wouldn't say it was perfect, but as one of those people who falls into the Kill Bill 1 over Kill Bill 2 camp, it was a welcome return to Tarantino balancing amazing scenery chewing AND satisfying action in relative equal measure. I will say though, and this is related to the movie only in a the broadest sense, as a white American guy there was a small personal undercurrent of...well, it's hard to pin down but I think disquiet, shame, embarrassment. I think on some level it's just disturbing that this film could be made, that such horrors could be drawn directly from my country's history. I wonder if it's the same feeling a German audience might have at something like Inglorious Basterds, not that they themselves are accountable but more a sense of an unfortunate shared history. At the same time though, I think there's a measure of catharsis in rooting so hard for the destruction of what we can now see was so clearly evil. If we can't change the more reprehensible aspects of our history, I suppose the next best thing is to use fiction as a reminder and a means to kick it in the teeth, as Tarantino violently and gloriously does here.

 

Alright, now that the little stuff is out of the way, it's time to get down to the important issues: nitpicking. Though in this case, it's just one fairly large nit. While I didn't have a problem with Waltz dying (I mean, it sucked, but it's sort of par for the course for Tarantino/the genre), it struck me as odd not that he shot Candie, but that he didn't then turn and shoot the guy with the shotgun since it's (I think) a double-barreled derringer. I could be wrong, but doesn't he very deliberately shoot the sheriff twice with that same pistol? It probably wouldn't have stood out at all if it hadn't been for that earlier scene, but with that it seems like an odd lack of action, especially since he has time for a pithy one-liner before he gets blasted.

post #40 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael McGurn View Post

Hey man, I'm not sure if you've seen the theatrical cut yet but I'm trying to get an idea of what was in the 3 hour cut that you saw that didn't make the final cut. I'll list you the scenes that were in the script (and even trailers and soundtrack) and you can tell us if they were in the cut you saw:
The rape scene flashback?
Stephen showing Django to his room at Candyland and getting put in his place by Django?
Stephen interrogating Broomhilda in the kitchen about singing after she gets out of the hot box?
More Billy Crash scenes, including him interrogating the new slaves when they arrive at Candyland?
Extended torture scene in the barn with Stephen burning off Django's nipples?

I haven't seen it again yet. The scene with Django ordering Stephen around was definitely in the cut I saw. There may have been a rape flashback. A bit foggy on that. Stephen interrogates Broomhilda, but not about singing after the hot box. It's basically him noticing how she keeps looking at Django and she must know him. Don't recall Goggins interrogating slaves or Stephen burning off his nipples. Goggins does grab his dick for a while.
post #41 of 978

Django does not order around Stephen.  The scene he's talking about is just the two of them alone, in Djangos room where Django essentially pulls rank. 

post #42 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post

 

So after years of killing people as a bounty hunter and seeing the horrors of slavery previously and lord knows what else, it's a trip to Candieland that causes him to break?  I don't know.  It's possible I guess.  I just didn't buy it.  He was all packed up, ready to leave but the handshake was the straw that broke the camel's back.  Again, he had risked so much to get to this point, he took Django under his wing, felt responsible for him, wanted him to succeed and start a new life with his wife, he was almost to the finish line...and then he breaks and throws it all away.  For me it was a bridge too far...but I can see why others feel differently.

 

I thought contextually and thematically, it worked perfectly ... and I'm a little baffled at the criticism that this film is indulgent and lacks substance.  Having Waltz' character disgusted with American slavery while calling-back to the Landa character made the connection that, yes, American Slavery really is disgusting, really really bad - just as bad as the Holocaust and America was just as bad as Germany.  If you don't believe it - QT goes ahead and shows it, and I say huzza.  As long as slavery was a thing in America, everybody was complacent and had it coming, just like the Nazis in Basterds or Raiders.  I loved, loved, loved it.

post #43 of 978

Holy shit was Sam Jackson awesome in this.

 

 

1000

post #44 of 978

Total blast. Really liked it, and if it isn't quite the film Basterds was (what is?), it was so far above the usual dreck that it didn't matter, and also a nice change of pace in the middle of all the prestige pictures. Everyone is great, super excited to see it again.

 

The one thing that bugged me: Losing Waltz and DiCaprio with another half hour or so to go felt like a misstep, not just because it was the character I most liked and the character I most wanted to see die. Although that's a good reason too. Up until that point, there was a lot of suspense hanging over the proceedings, specifically will Dr Schultz make it out, and who'll get to kill DiCaprio? Resolving those two issues meant there was only one place left for the movie to go, Django killing Stephen and claiming Broomhilda. Everything that happened in the last chunk was all good, but it lost a certain spark of fear. 

 

Regardless, fucking Waltz is a genius. What a likable performance.

post #45 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Total blast. Really liked it, and if it isn't quite the film Basterds was (what is?), it was so far above the usual dreck that it didn't matter, and also a nice change of pace in the middle of all the prestige pictures. Everyone is great, super excited to see it again.

 

The one thing that bugged me: Losing Waltz and DiCaprio with another half hour or so to go felt like a misstep, not just because it was the character I most liked and the character I most wanted to see die. Although that's a good reason too. Up until that point, there was a lot of suspense hanging over the proceedings, specifically will Dr Schultz make it out, and who'll get to kill DiCaprio? Resolving those two issues meant there was only one place left for the movie to go, Django killing Stephen and claiming Broomhilda. Everything that happened in the last chunk was all good, but it lost a certain spark of fear. 

 

Regardless, fucking Waltz is a genius. What a likable performance.

Well, the movie was called "Django Unchained", so it was kind of nice to see Foxx kick ass in a way that Denzel, Big Willie and Eddie got to over and over again in their primes.  Yes, Foxx did great in "Miami Vice" and he did blow the shit out of the bad guys, but that wasn't the five-star movie we all thought it would be, and Foxx's character was pretty humorless - plus how long did it take to clear the trailer of white-supremacists using close-combat fighting?  Two, maybe three minutes?  Whack.  This was the movie Foxx fans have wanted to see for twenty years - he blew the shit out of the bad guys, got to kiss his smoking-hot wife, and hey, how about some equestrian tricks ... why the fuck not?  Foxx earned this shit - he was a hit on TV, he has an Oscar, his records sell, and he packed on the mass without sacrificing flexibility.

 

And yes, it's sad to see Waltz and Leo go, but I'll take the Pepsi Challenge that Foxx Vs. Goggins and Jackson in the third act beats 99% of other movies out there.  Here's some of the 1% club:

 

Ripley Vs. the Queen Alien

John Matrix Vs. Bennett

Rocky Vs. Drago

Van Damme and Dennis Rodman Vs. Rourke

post #46 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

 

At what point in his dealings as a bounty hunter did Schultz come across someone who had a human being torn apart by dogs just because he could, do you think?  And then that piece of shit had the gall to insist on a handshake after threatening to bash a defenseless woman's head in.

 

A bounty hunter who always killed his bounties rather than bring them in alive because it was more convienient.  A bounty hunter who was knowledgable about slavery and mandingo fighting...it wasn't like this stuff was brand new to him.

 

You're missing my point though.  I'm not saying Schultz shouldn't have been disgusted, horrified, angry, etc etc etc...I get all that.  I'm saying his action at that moment runs totally counter to everything this guy was about leading up to that point.  His actions put Django and Hilda in immediate danger not to mention signed his own death warrant.  The Schultz I saw at the beginning of the movie would have tried to figure out a way to get the three of them out while also not giving Candie the satisfaction, despite whatever anger he was harboring.  I understand people break, people snap, people lose their head and act irrationally at times but out of everybody in this movie Schultz would be the least likely candidate to lose his head in a moment of passion.  The movie would have you believe that Schultz just couldn't help himself, and that's fine.  I'm not sure why I have such a problem with this but I do. 

post #47 of 978

He just couldn't help himself, Candie was just that big of an asshole. What with the three dimples speech and all, and the handshake and the ignorance.  That was the part that really sent Schultz over the edge.  Yes, he had seen brutality and violence and racism and assholes, but it was that fake intelligence and pretentiousness that Candie carried himself with that ultimately made Schultz do what he did. 

post #48 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Pathetic View Post

 

His first line I immediately greeted with "Is he trying an Aussie accent?".  It's that bad.  It's not until the other slavers start talking (all with Aussie accents) that I realized it's what he was doing.  And I'm guessing those slavers were only from Australia because it was the one accent Quentin thought he could pull off. 

 

Those mining company guys were probably from Australia because Tarantino is a big fan of the the third guy, John Jarratt ("you're alright for a black fella!"... so great in Wolf Creek, but he's done loads of Aussie exploitation type stuff). Also, Michael Parks was hilarious in the "does he even realize his character is supposed to be from Australia, or does he just not care?" sense.

 

I don't usually give a shit about box office type stuff, but I want to say I think this movie will do really well. I saw it yesterday, 9am showing, theater was about 80% full, mostly African American, the audience absolutely ate it up. Went fucking NUTS when Jackson's brilliant ultimate Uncle Tom got kneecapped. So much fun.

post #49 of 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple_72 View Post

 

I don't usually give a shit about box office type stuff, but I want to say I think this movie will do really well. I saw it yesterday, 9am showing, theater was about 80% full, mostly African American, the audience absolutely ate it up. Went fucking NUTS when Jackson's brilliant ultimate Uncle Tom got kneecapped. So much fun.

 

Yeah, for some reason I'm always shocked that there are tons of middle-class black folks who show up to Madea and stuff like this in my town, even though my wife and I have tons of black colleagues and friends - I guess I just didn't think of this one as a "black film".  My crowd was about 40% black, and everybody was pretty rowdy.  The "Not you Stephen" line got the biggest reaction ... probably one of the best crowds I've ever been in, at least outside of LA.

 

I think this movie will live forever.  Like "Toxic Avenger" or "Big Trouble in Little China" I think 13 year-old boys are going to watch this movie for the next 100 years, thinking it's a big secret that only they and their friends know about.

post #50 of 978

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Django Unchained - Post-Release