- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Just got back from seeing Django Unchained
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think a lot of this is filling in gaps that you want to believe in more than what we actually see on screen
I disagree. There is a lot of Hans in Schultz's character, and I think that is incredibly intentional. What we saw as psychotic and evil in a Nazi is suddenly zany and comedic in a character we like. I think that's an intentional choice by Tarantino and Waltz, showing how perspective changes things -- and to show Schultz is not a whimsical character. We walk into this movie with the baggage of IB. Tarantino has always played on his audience's knowledge of his films. I see no reason why he would stop now.
That said, given his nature, he is a killer, not a slaver or torturer. And the dog scene's impact on Schultz cannot be understated. It's why we cut back to it later in the film. It has shaken Schultz to his core. He is a man of violence and also one who exploits the law to his advantage. But this is an evil far beyond even him. It's not just a man was torn apart by dogs, it's that it was completely legal and totally unneccessary. He can morally justify killing criminals, but he cannot justify killing and torturing the innocent. It is the bridge too far.
Even then, he's willing to pay the cash and just get out of there, but it's when Candie pushes the point and demands he shake his nad. To treat him as a gentleman and an equal. It is something he cannot abide. And so he steps outside the law, while regaining a moral good. He kills criminals -- the deserving. And here is a man even more vile, so he must be killed as well.
As for Stephen... I can't believe anyone would call Jackson's performance one note. Seriously, you forsaw the scene with him sitting in the library swirling brandy in the snifter? Because I sure as hell didn't. There's being the brains behind the operation, and then there's what Stephen was.
I don't think this was quite as good as Basterds, which I think was Tarantino's masterpiece. But for a guy five years ago I thought had completely lost his way as a director, I think Tarantino's "middle period" is shaping up to be the equal of any man's peak. He is using the slick form of his early years to a more substantial purpose now. He's living up to all of his early promise.
It just took him 20 years to get there. Bravo. This movie is amazing.
2
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:17 pm to Baloo
quote:
I disagree. There is a lot of Hans in Schultz's character, and I think that is incredibly intentional. What we saw as psychotic and evil in a Nazi is suddenly zany and comedic in a character we like. I think that's an intentional choice by Tarantino and Waltz, showing how perspective changes things -- and to show Schultz is not a whimsical character. We walk into this movie with the baggage of IB. Tarantino has always played on his audience's knowledge of his films. I see no reason why he would stop now.
That said, given his nature, he is a killer, not a slaver or torturer. And the dog scene's impact on Schultz cannot be understated. It's why we cut back to it later in the film. It has shaken Schultz to his core. He is a man of violence and also one who exploits the law to his advantage. But this is an evil far beyond even him. It's not just a man was torn apart by dogs, it's that it was completely legal and totally unneccessary. He can morally justify killing criminals, but he cannot justify killing and torturing the innocent. It is the bridge too far.
Even then, he's willing to pay the cash and just get out of there, but it's when Candie pushes the point and demands he shake his nad. To treat him as a gentleman and an equal. It is something he cannot abide. And so he steps outside the law, while regaining a moral good. He kills criminals -- the deserving. And here is a man even more vile, so he must be killed as well.
As for Stephen... I can't believe anyone would call Jackson's performance one note. Seriously, you forsaw the scene with him sitting in the library swirling brandy in the snifter? Because I sure as hell didn't. There's being the brains behind the operation, and then there's what Stephen was.
I don't think this was quite as good as Basterds, which I think was Tarantino's masterpiece. But for a guy five years ago I thought had completely lost his way as a director, I think Tarantino's "middle period" is shaping up to be the equal of any man's peak. He is using the slick form of his early years to a more substantial purpose now. He's living up to all of his early promise.
It just took him 20 years to get there. Bravo. This movie is amazing.
:bow: :bow:
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:19 pm to Baloo
quote:
That said, given his nature, he is a killer, not a slaver or torturer. And the dog scene's impact on Schultz cannot be understated. It's why we cut back to it later in the film. It has shaken Schultz to his core. He is a man of violence and also one who exploits the law to his advantage. But this is an evil far beyond even him. It's not just a man was torn apart by dogs, it's that it was completely legal and totally unneccessary. He can morally justify killing criminals, but he cannot justify killing and torturing the innocent. It is the bridge too far.
but for how shaken he was and for how profound of an effect it had on him, it didn't seem to bug him much until it was dramatically suitable. he still executed the plan to a T, and the only frickup was by django's wife (not shultz)
quote:
Seriously, you forsaw the scene with him sitting in the library swirling brandy in the snifter? Because I sure as hell didn't. There's being the brains behind the operation, and then there's what Stephen was.
by that point in time it was already clear that candie was an idiot and stephen was the HNIC (house negro in charge). from his introduction until his death, nothing changed in that regard
quote:
He is using the slick form of his early years to a more substantial purpose now.
i don't think this movie was shot very slick and he's becoming preachy and lost direction. QT is not a person who can do preachy, and i think the writing of this movie showed that. hell the interspliced absurd comedy showed he wasn't comfortable with going "all in"
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News