Django Strikes Again / Django 2: il grande ritorno (Nello Rossati, 1987)


(alk0) #1

http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Django_2:_il_grande_ritorno

In the only official sequel Django comes off more as a Rambo than Django. He guns lots of people in big battles and makes lots of remarks that make him sound concerned about the future of the wolrd and other people. in other words - pure cheese. Christopher Connely makes for a fitting over-the-top villain. Music is too synthetically sounding for this kind of movie. I was surprised by number of pedofilic overtones in this movie. Little girls are getting sold to brothel and there’s some customer who seems interested in them, there’s even a scene where it’s implied that some old guy raped girl that certainly looks underage. Still as a brainless entertainment and nice cheesefest it’s not that bad. 6/10 for entertainment value

Note: my version doesn’t contain the famous prologue. Are those korean discs worth buying just for prologue and Franco Nero interview?


(Bill san Antonio) #2

[quote=“alk0, post:1, topic:1631”]Note: my version doesn’t contain the famous prologue. Are those korean discs worth buying just for prologue and Franco Nero interview?[/quote]I think the prologue is the best part of the movie. If you can get it for low price go ahead and buy it!


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #3

Yes the prologue is the best part of that film for sure.


(Frank Talby) #4

complete waste of time and I agree the prologue is the best part.


(autephex) #5

both elements are on the anchor bay release also


(T.H) #6

Not a worthy sequel at all and i agree that the prologue was probably the highligt of the movie. 5/10


(chuck connors brother) #7

I don’t think prologue is that great


(korano) #8

Doesn’t the prologe star William Berer though?


(Stanton) #9

The prologue was terrible. Or was it laughable? Oh, I remember, it was both.


(Sebastian) #10

prologue? put it on youtube, i’m not wasting money on this


(Dillinger) #11

There’s a gerneral problem I have with the 80s SWs I know. They all look like cheap TV productions.
Why?
They lack techniscope!
Even if Django2 was abig hit, I couldn’t watch it because of that.


(Stanton) #12

Django was also not shot in Techniscope. The correct aspect ratio is 1,66:1.

Too bad for you.


(Dillinger) #13

I don’t know wether Django was shot in this format or not. This wasn’t my point. I mean the picture quality and the look of the image.


(Sebastian) #14

technicolor instead of techniscope then?

be careful dillinger, we’re nitty-gritty today and we’re gonna attack everyone for things that are not articulated precise enough :smiley:


(Stanton) #15

But you are right, The photography of Django Sucks Back looks bad.


(autephex) #16

Seems to be a general problem with a lot of 80s films, spaghetti or not… I’m assuming just a product of the time… its not like the spaghettis looked better because they had big budgets or anything


(Tigrero) #17

Could this be related to the advent of video in the late 70’s? Companies making films to be viewed mainly on people’s tellys rather than at the cinema. Different aspect ratio and possibly different filming techniques and equipment? I don’t know, just asking.


(autephex) #18

That’s pretty much what I would assume… introduction of cheaper video options. I would probably place the fault at the equipment, rather than any techniques, or conscious decisions etc.

I don’t know this for fact either, just what I always figured


(Stanton) #19

Of course, with the video market prefering 1,33:1 films there were more films shot for 1,78:1 for cinema, which were shown then in 1,33:1 open matte on the TV. Nowadays with widescreen Tellies these film are generally shown again in 1,78:1.

I explain it again for everybody who does not know it. 1,33:1 open matte shows you only what the black bars hide when they are shown on an old 4:3 TV in its cinema aspect ratio of 1,78:1. Means you can see more on top and ground.


(autephex) #20

Aside from the aspect ratio though, the video quality just looks like crap in a lot of these films. It could just be that the video needs a good restoration, but to me it just seems like its the way it was filmed/what it was filmed on… I don’t really know much about the technical side of what kind of cameras and film were being used around that time period, but definitely can notice a difference from the prior decades just in how it looks on screen… like Dillinger said, it looks like a cheaply made TV production