Thread: All Things: Quentin Tarantino

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

So... nobody has any thoughts on Django Unchained?

Cus I just watched it and I loved it.

So let it never be said that I can't enjoy a movie.

Going tomorrow...already included it on my best of...list for the year.


and



you can't enjoy a movie

I very much enjoyed it and did not remotely notice how long it was, but I can't put it on a best of list. So much of it is just Quentin being Quentin, right down to the ridiculous overuse of fake blood and the completely gratuitous cameo (with even more gratuitous Australian accent). Christoph Waltz is just amazing, even better than he was in Inglorious Basterds, and Leonardo DiCaprio is right behind him. I will never not be amused by the "You had my curiosity, now you have my attention" line. Jamie Foxx and Sam Jackson were great too, but just overshadowed by two exceptional performances. Directing fabulous, music fantastic, plenty of deeply wrong but hilarious moments, just like any Tarantino movie, but it just didn't give me the feeling I'd ever need to see it again.

My original impulse, immediately upon leaving the theater, was that I liked it a lot but didn't LOVE it.

I suppose a fitting quote would be "If you're gonna compare a Hanzo sword, you compare it to every other sword ever made... that wasn't made by Hattori Hanzo"... compared to most movies I loved it, but compared to Tarantino's other works I wasn't quite as impressed.

But upon reflecting for 36 hours or so, I'm realizing how much I enjoyed it. Definitely need another viewing, which I'll probably get around to in the next week or two.

Excellent acting across the board, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by KingInTheWest

I very much enjoyed it and did not remotely notice how long it was, but I can't put it on a best of list. So much of it is just Quentin being Quentin, right down to the ridiculous overuse of fake blood and the completely gratuitous cameo (with even more gratuitous Australian accent). Christoph Waltz is just amazing, even better than he was in Inglorious Basterds, and Leonardo DiCaprio is right behind him. I will never not be amused by the "You had my curiosity, now you have my attention" line. Jamie Foxx and Sam Jackson were great too, but just overshadowed by two exceptional performances. Directing fabulous, music fantastic, plenty of deeply wrong but hilarious moments, just like any Tarantino movie, but it just didn't give me the feeling I'd ever need to see it again.

Originally Posted by USCKingsFan31

My original impulse, immediately upon leaving the theater, was that I liked it a lot but didn't LOVE it.

I suppose a fitting quote would be "If you're gonna compare a Hanzo sword, you compare it to every other sword ever made... that wasn't made by Hattori Hanzo"... compared to most movies I loved it, but compared to Tarantino's other works I wasn't quite as impressed.

But upon reflecting for 36 hours or so, I'm realizing how much I enjoyed it. Definitely need another viewing, which I'll probably get around to in the next week or two.

Excellent acting across the board, that's for sure.

Saved me the trouble of trying to figure out my feelings on this one. Good work guys. Just to add, it makes sense that a movie with 'a man with no name' type is short on snappy banter. But that ain't a QT flick. Things pick up nicely when they reach Candieland, but it just doesn't seem like enough. Strangely, Kerri Washington's part/performance is the weakest of the bunch. It's like that dreadful Snow White flick...you never get to understand what makes her so special to inspire the kind of heroics necessary to save her. That's also unusual for QT, because he does write strong females. Christoph Waltz does soooo much heavy lifting here...and you forget that Samuel L. Jackson is far more capable then most of his 'show up and say mother****er' parts allow you to see. Two actors who I simply don't care for, Jamie Foxx/Leo Di are both VERY good as well. There is a LOT of stuntcasting and sadly characters that you only get hints of are gone/dead far too soon. SPOILERSWalton GogginsSPOILERS...and yeah the Outback Steakhouse shoehorned in cameo is brutal(but forgivable). The blood is pretty silly/over the top too, intentionally so...but it's a little much. All in all like the other fine opinions, liked it...didn't love it.

Saw it today. As many, liked it didn't love it. I thought all the blood was a Peckinpah homage. But I did think it was too long, and I liked the first half better than the second. The plantation stuff could've been shorter and we didn't need so much of the movie left after Waltz was gone.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

Saw it today. As many, liked it didn't love it. I thought all the blood was a Peckinpah homage. But I did think it was too long, and I liked the first half better than the second. The plantation stuff could've been shorter and we didn't need so much of the movie left after Waltz was gone.

Strongly disagree about the Candieland stuff. That was where the movie really popped if you ask me. You had the height of Sam Jackson/Leo Di and Christoph Waltz working magic there. BTW...a few days removed, I have to re-evaluate my opinion of Waltz's performance. It was good. But I think it's because we all like him so much and it was nice to root for him as a 'good' character. His Hans Landa, is without a doubt, the apex of what we have seen from him. Dr. King Schultz was, like most in the movie, a simple character. Waltz made a vicious Jew hunter into a damned charming individual. Even playful. THAT is a terrific performance AND a well written character. But yeah, the movie suffered after SPOILERS Waltz's exit SPOILERS...Foxx just wasn't compelling enough, either as written, or performed, to carry the movie.

I loved it and thought it needed MORE blood splatter.

There were definitely parts that dragged a bit, and there were a number of characters/actors I would have liked to have seen more of (why even bother casting Zoe Bell?), but I thought it was a lot of fun.

Other than the big, gorey shootout I thought the scene where all the whiteys were complaining about eye holes in their bag was the best.

After reading about Leo cutting his hand unintentionally and continuing the scene, and then seeing him smear his blood all over Kerry Washington's face... was there a cut in there somewhere??

Even BoobyTrap liked the movie and you KNOW how she feels about Tarantino.

The soundtrack was aces again, but I have a hard time imagining him ever being able to top Kill Bill in that department.

Fun movie. Definitely one of the year's best for me.

Originally Posted by adgy-san

I loved it and thought it needed MORE blood splatter.

There were definitely parts that dragged a bit, and there were a number of characters/actors I would have liked to have seen more of (why even bother casting Zoe Bell?), but I thought it was a lot of fun.

Other than the big, gorey shootout I thought the scene where all the whiteys were complaining about eye holes in their bag was the best.

After reading about Leo cutting his hand unintentionally and continuing the scene, and then seeing him smear his blood all over Kerry Washington's face... was there a cut in there somewhere??

Even BoobyTrap liked the movie and you KNOW how she feels about Tarantino.

The soundtrack was aces again, but I have a hard time imagining him ever being able to top Kill Bill in that department.

Fun movie. Definitely one of the year's best for me.

Yeah, I was wondering that with the blood too. And was that scene really his blood? I gotta figure Washington may have been slightly pissed at that(I know I would).

And yeah, knowing BT's feelings about QT I hesitate what you had to mortgage to actually get her to see that...ESPECIALLY considering just how weak Washington's character was.

And, as much as you liked it...was it satisfying when held next to Tarentino's other works?


P.S. I knew...just knew you were gonna be offended by Zoe Bell's lack of screen time. I agree. I think there was such a better movie with the inclusion of more work from Bell, Goggins, and M.C. Gainey's characters.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And yeah, knowing BT's feelings about QT I hesitate what you had to mortgage to actually get her to see that...ESPECIALLY considering just how weak Washington's character was.

I had to watch Pitch Perfect. It wasn't as bad as I'd feared, but I still really dislike all this singing Glee-****. BT still wouldn't have gone to see it, though, unless one of her work buddies also went to see it with us. For some reason, a recommendation from me is worth less than most. Heh.

And, as much as you liked it...was it satisfying when held next to Tarentino's other works?

Hmm. Well, I'd like to see it again before I say for sure, but right now I'm going to say it's on the lower end of the QT spectrum for me. Considering how much I enjoy his previous work, though, that shouldn't be considered too much of a knock on Django.

P.S. I knew...just knew you were gonna be offended by Zoe Bell's lack of screen time. I agree. I think there was such a better movie with the inclusion of more work from Bell, Goggins, and M.C. Gainey's characters.

Yeah. I also felt almost cheated that we didn't get some kind of last duel between Foxx and Goggins after all the talk between the two of them, and, really, what's a spaghetti western without a final showdown between two gunfighters and a tumbleweed? I wonder if Joseph Gordon Levitt had stayed in the film, would the role have been different?

As for Bell, Gainey, Michael Parks, Bruce Dern, etc, I guess I will content myself with the idea that they got paid for just being them. Well deserved, in my opinion.