I just want to say that I know a lot of people who didn’t like it, even though also, most people however loved it, and ratings averages seem to confirm that.
However, i have been exploring a bit where the distaste for the movie comes from. One main reason seem to be not too high expectations but wrong expectations of what the movie would be like. Here in this forum I have a feeling that a lot of people expected a spaghetti western for example. Nowhere did it say it would be a spaghetti western.
I share the analysis that the movie has some heavy flaws, in fact my own opinion is that it needed tightening. Not shortening or trimming, but tightening, and in fact a lot of footage should have gone back in.
While yes, the “snowy snow” sequence adds some much needed lightness (and non-evil white men), it is in fact one of those sequences that illustrate a) unneeded material and both b) an example of where Tarantino teases something and then just cuts away. Who is this guy? Why do they meet him? What about the squirrel? Who’s birthday was it?
That last theme draws through most of the movie: a lot of teasing of minor characters but then refocus on something else, leaving the audience curious and teased, but unfulfilled.
…and I missed a real final showdown. As it is, the movie has two endings ,neither of them fully satisfactory…
BUT even those who didn’t like it: I don’t think you could say it isn’t one hell of an entertaining experience…
IMO there’s a serious issue as far as the balance of tongue-in-cheek humor and seriousness is concerned. The ratio seems to be the right one if you take an overall look of the movie. However, if you examine each scene separately then there is problem. There are scenes which are downright comedic, some others which are downright “trashy”/exploitative and some others which are quite serious. Everything, from the dialogue to the use of violence, is done in such an excessive fashion that it would have been extremely difficult to maintain a good balance in the first place. In some other of his films (e.g. Inglorious Basterds) Tarantino achieved a better chemistry between those styles, in DU, however, IMO he failed. I’m all for cartoonish/Sartana/Sabata/Cemetery type of westerns and I don’t mind irony, heavy tongue-in-cheek humor and even exploitative violence at all as long as they are all thrown in in the right proportion and their use doesn’t ruin the smooth flow of the film. If you decide to be exploitative all the way, then 165 min can become VERY tiring. Using tongue-in-cheek humor for the same duration may lead to silliness. A no-frills, serious film would demand a totally different approach from the very first minute. The successful mixture of all three is a tougher task and as far as DU goes, IMO that successful mixture simply wasn’t achieved.
[quote=“Sebastian, post:361, topic:2720”]Here in this forum I have a feeling that a lot of people expected a spaghetti western for example. Nowhere did it say it would be a spaghetti western.[/quote]Indeed, people just put that into their own heads.
On the other hand, it’s not that extraordinary especially when the word “Django” is used in the film title. It’s a bit like saying you shouldn’t expect a spy film if you see the words “James Bond” on the title.
[quote=“ION BRITTON, post:365, topic:2720”]On the other hand, it’s not that extraordinary especially when the word “Django” is used in the film title. It’s a bit like saying you shouldn’t expect a spy film if you see the words “James Bond” on the title. [/quote]But it is still a western, it’s an American film, how could it be a spaghetti. The only thing I was expecting spaghettiwise about it was the use of borrowed music and some references here and there.
You can’t really use that mention of Bond because Django Unchained is a western, just not a spaghetti and why should it be?
And yes it’s set in the south, but not all films classed as westerns are in the west are they
Spaghettis are westerns too. But the difference is in style. It wouldn’t make DU a “true” spaghetti if the production for example was italian or italian-american and the style was american all the way. Well, technically it would have been one, yes, but not in spirit. And that’s what counts most for me.
Certain characters are so strongly connected to certain genres that it is fundamentally difficult to avoid any connotations. Not talking about using the name of El Puro here, it’s Django that it’s used and it’s one of the most easily recognizable and characteristic names/figures of the whole genre.
I think what it comes down to is a lot of people expected an old school spaghetti western (for whatever reason), while all that was “promised” was a Tarantino film with spaghetti western ELEMENTS, including style, music and homages.
Agreed. I never for one minute expected QT to churn out a “spaghetti western”. He never does that! Even death proof was not a typical car movie, Basterds was not your everyday WWII movie, so why would anybody expect DU to be any different? And like I said before, this film owes more to movies like N*** Charley and Boss N*** rather than SWs.
There’s even a reference to “Charley One-Eye”, the Richard Rpundtree film.
That aside, I personally judge a film by what I see. Surely, it would be better if it met my expectations (not talking in quality terms), but even if it didn’t, I would have no problem acknowledging it in case I enjoyed it. That’s not the case here though. Like I’ve said before, I believe it would have worked infinitely better if Tarantino approached the matter in a more serious tone and didn’t make excessive use of tongue-in-cheek humor and needless hyperviolent action.
The story has its problems too. The movie should have reached its climax and ended when Waltz and DiCaprio were about to shake hands. It was impossible for anything that happened after that to have the same impact on the viewer since the tension was quite well built up and was at a higher level at that point and it would be difficult and pointless (and tiring for the viewer) to go through all of it one more time, especially when one has already been stuck to his chair and watching the film for nearly 150 minutes.
I wasn’t expecting a spaghetti at all. Americans can’t make a spaghetti western. Only Italians pretending to be Americans can do that!
The most is had in common with a spaghetti was the bad plotting.
I still think it is a bit cheap borrowing Django’s font and theme song for the opening. It is and admission of not being able to come up with something as cool or original as something made nearly fifty years ago.
More on the references could DiCaprio’s Candy be partially inspired by Mark Damon’s southern sadist in Requiscant?
Rewatched it yesterday. I’m still finding it cool, but still: there are some unnecessary scenes in it. Plus Candyland is overlong and I really do not like the ending. And when the ending of a film is bad it can destroy the whole feeling of/for a film.
Don’t get me wrong. It is a hell of a ride, but surely not QTs best film.
Only thing I hope for now is that the Dvd will include all of the cut scenes. May drag on longer than humanly necessary, but at least it might make a bit more sense in some parts.
Yeah, you’re probably right. You would think people would get it now to include all the footage in the release… Like Man With The Iron Fists. Four hours originally, cut to one and 45minutes. Only what, seven more minutes of footage? From 120? But I digress.
I watched “Django Unchained” yesterday. Not a masterpiece but still very good movie.
Maybe i had expected something else but I had a great fun anyway.
The first half is like a tarantino western film and the second like a tarantino film.
Western feeling disappears somewhere.
And the music is excellent.
The closest thing I can relate new QT flicks are to is Sam Peckinpah’s Cross of Iron, while a grimy somber almost delirious WW2 film, it has long odd scenes of dialogue that build to a comedic point, some surprising bursts of violence and the ending of the film makes the whole movie a setup for a joke. I mean just in the odd uneveness of it. I like DU cause I felt I was being taken along for a ride I couldn’t predict for a second where it was going to end up. That unpredictability alone makes Tarantino worth the ticket price everytime as we don’t have many unique film makers left in Hollywood. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but it was the best thing I saw in a theater last year and I saw damn near everything that came out.
Almost 3 hours flew by - I’d say that’s still best way to judge whether I like movie or not.
Somewhere among all the fantastic silliness of this movie, there is a serious statement about racial issues…that statement would be something like: “You know where you can put that skull!”
I have minor complaints about the movie, I guess when I get to make Django Revisited I will fix them…
