Quentin Tarantino's Western movie "Django Unchained"

lots of liberated slaves (and northern blacks who were never slaves) were "recaptured" and sold back into slavery if they were in the "wrong" state.

django II?

django rechained

but they have their freedom papers

I know it's looking past the boundaries of a myth-making movie to wonder whether those freedom papers would have mattered a damn had Broonhilde and Django been captured by Southerners.

you guys he is a superhero who just killed like 100 people and blew up a mansion, I am sure he can get out of the south

well yeah but at least it would make a premise for a sequel. not that i'd want a sequel.

Django 2chained

If there's a sequel it would likely take place during the civil war, which could be pretty interesting. Django could be some kind of Union mercenary, and knowing Tarantino's penchant for alternate history maybe he kills Jefferson Davis?

BTW I'm already mailing my treatment to the Weinsteins...

Jefferson Davis played by Helen Mirren.

sequel should fast forward 25 years and have SLJ play django

i misread the initials and thought you meant Sarah Jessica Parker

Old Django trains an Asian-American who worked on the railroad to bounty hunt during the gold rush.

Tarantino I hope you're reading this I am giving you awesome ideas for free!!!

he should join a rodeo in the sequel

Those slaves freed from the cart by Django will likely be captured.

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:54 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the ewoks will likely die from the fallout from the second death star exploding above their forest moon

otm

Wicket killed by falling Death Star scrap metal.

so has this been posted already

yes

pretty good review: http://www.badazzmofo.com/2013/01/18/at-long-last-my-thoughts-on-django-unchained/

agreed

that review is interesting particularly as it directly points out what's good about the film as well as indirectly pointing to its limitations.

as i said way upthread, I think i always struggle with QT films because I have a totally different sensibility. we have different favorite movies, and maybe even look to movies for different things.

I think it's clear from his recent films, and even statements that QT has made himself (though of course intent only goes so far), that he believes not only in the redemptive power of cinematic violence (i'll leave what that has to do with "real" violence on the table) and in particular in a kind of cinematic mythology as emancipatory, redemptive, and even politically enabling in an indirect way. he's not ironically appropriating the tropes of the cinema he grew up on, he's trying to sincerely express its transgressive power. he believes in it--and that's really why his corny plots have this weird and fascinating emotional pull to them.

i think, ultimately, this just isn't a place to which i can follow him all the way. not only because I don't enjoy those movies as much as he does, but because I'm too cynical about them--i can see how they are transgressive and redemptive in certain ways but too often QT seems (to my limited reading) to take these tropes at face value when I'd want to critique them, expose them as myths that are contingent on power. in other words, I don't think one can appropriate these kinds of narratives without those narratives in turn exerting their own kind of control over the "meaning" of the film. there's a tension there that truly fascinating but i wonder if it doesn't also signal that his later projects ultimately fail in some sense.

to clarify, there's really nothing transgressive, nothing really challenging, about the actual narrative logic of DU to my eyes. of course, what remains is what's in the background (history, oppression, real suffering)--and that relationship isn't something i can really work out at the moment.

this film was p boring and bad felt like one music video after another

i felt that way about expendables2.

terry crews would have been good in django, though.

the other day i was actually replaying the movie in my head but w/crews in every scene

someone should make a tarantino soundtrack poll

otm

terry crews vs samuel l jackson in a righteous indignation-off should be prequel.

Felt like the portrayal of white ppl in this movie was problematic

http://images.tvrage.com/screencaps/14/2638/465968.jpg

Oh do go on, please.

It looked like the 3 slaves who should have been freed when Django escaped were left sitting in the cage with th edoor open, were they in a state of shock or something? Did they need somebody to point out that they were free? Would've thought they might take off as soon as they realised the door was open, didn't appear to be chained, though I could be wrong.

There is a scene after the credits, not sure if anybdy pointed thst out. I forgot who it said played BIg Daddy in th eopening credits and didn't recognise him so hung around for a cast list which I didn't see.

Some interesting cameos. Didn't recognise Franco Nero til he was standing at the bar. Also which character was Son of A Gunfighter? Noticed the IMDB cast list had it as Russ TAmblyn but then i couldn't place the character.

They just saw several people explode and Django to open up their cage, it might take a moment or two to collect one's thoughts.

which character was Son of A Gunfighter? Noticed the IMDB cast list had it as Russ TAmblyn but then i couldn't place the character

Russ Tamblyn and IRL daughter Amber appear as a father and daughter who watch Django come into town riding a horse near the beginning of the film. The cast list credit is apparently a Tarantino jokey reference to a 1965 western Tamblyn starred in.

long read:
http://thequietus.com/articles/11262-django-unchined-occult-history

thx; good read

You know, I've always found something to like about every Tarantino film, and this was no exception. The performances of Waltz, DiCaprio and in particular Sam Jackson (who gets to act a little for once) are strong, and it was shot well. But otherwise I thought this aimed for trash and mostly landed on straight garbage. It even made me question Tarantino's ability to tell a basic story. Just incoherent, indulgent, dumb ... all the things Tarantino haters say that his other movies are not. Big missed opportunity, especially the drag of the post mansion massacre, when the movie ... just .... keeps ... going.

Part of the problem is the stupid affected dialogue.

"Now, gentlemen, would you care to watch me open this door?"

"That door?"

"Yes, this particular door."

"You're going to open it?"

"Yes, that is what I said."

"Then open the door."

"I just wanted to assure myself that you in fact did not object to me opening said door before I did so."

"If we are indeed both speaking of the same door, then I say you open the motherfucker."

(opens door)

"And now the door is open."

"The motherfucking door."

"Yes, the motherfucking door."

still better than brave imo

I'm not even sure I can say that.

would watch Josh in Chicago's Beckett/Tarantino mashup play

"Now, gentlemen, would you care to watch me open this door?"

"That door?"

"Yes, this particular door."

"You're going to open it?"

"Yes, that is what I said."

"Then open the door."

"I just wanted to assure myself that you in fact did not object to me opening said door before I did so."

i thought this kind of thing rly dragged waltz down in this one

It's a shame the two directors I'd be most interested to see shoot someone else's script (Tarantino and Malick) are the least likely to do so.

Just incoherent, indulgent, dumb

Tarantino's films are often arguably indulgent and dumb, Django certainly not excepted, but incoherent?!

http://justinstruggles.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/django-deconstructed/

That's exactly why, Josh, Waltz looked like a bad actor to me.

It's a shame the two directors I'd be most interested to see shoot someone else's script (Tarantino and Malick) are the least likely to do so.

― ryan, Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:42 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i always sorta thought this was why jackie brown was so great, b/c he lifted so much of it directly from leonard w/ only a few tarantino flourishes

Incoherent in that it really had no plot or message, motivations were largely muddy, the pacing was waaaaaay off (see: everything after the mansion, the "Blazing Saddles" klan raid digression, etc.). It had no real sense of time or geography (Texas to Tennessee to Mississippi?). All sorts of shit was off.

Also, felt a little bad for Walton Goggins, who gets cast as a racist for like the fifth time.

I find it kind of hard to believe you've seen Tarantino films before but went into one looking for a message, or non-affected dialogue. Was it a "one last chance" sort of thing?

Plot, motivations, these are fine, "pacing" is always a red herring - what would you want in the way of a sense of time and geography, one of those red dotted line on the map kind of things? I don't know how long it took them to get from one place to another, but why would I care?

No, I pretty much love all his other movies, even "Death Proof." This was not a "one last chance" but a first time all the things people complain about really rang true, with very little left over to justify to indulgences. I mean, I can go on and on. Why were there Australians in rural Mississippi, especially then? Why would Candie cart around this skull, passed around for decades, just to saw it apart for this one impulsive dramatic point? Was Sam Jackson's character pretending to have a limp? Was he pretending to be stupid for the benefit of Candie, or were the two in on it? To what end? Why would Waltz's character go through all that trouble just to get those three bounties? All it did was throw off what little plot there was ... or, to the contrary, provide what little plot/motivation/momentum it had. So many of the scenes, more than most so in Tarantino flicks, seemed like the movie was built around them rather than supporting a story, but a Picaresque this was not. It just random stuff happening for random reasons, with only the most facile of emotional cores. Basically, it was like "Basterds," except everything that movie did right this one did wrong.

Per the geography, it doesn't matter how they got from point a to point c, but why? Just criss-crossing the south at random?

Wasn't looking for a message, per se, but all his other movies (or maybe just the recent ones, "Kill Bill" and beyond) at least offered a modicum of wit in their PoMo pastiche approach. This one was totally witless and full of itself. I could go on, but I have to walk my kid to school.