re: Just got back from seeing Django Unchained

death proof blows, but to each their own whoever enjoys it

how can a movie with pitt have better acting than a movie with leonardo



i enjoy both tho. i agree the dvd release with be even better.

quote:

---

and waltz was a lot better in IB, plus there were great performances by the french scarlet jo and diane kruger

there wasn't anything like that in django, imho. jamie fox just was mean and black and shultz was unremarkable. leo was pretty good, though

---

Wow. Foxx performance was very nuanced. He had the biggest character of any character. By the end he was displaying his intelligence in a "King Shultz" manner in order to get freedom from the slavers. And just black? lol. no need for comment there.

Shultz was incredible. "Almost" as good as Hans Lada. He's just more zany, he's so caught in the most elaborate things that it leads to his breakdown at the end. He's use to having the upper hand. He's use to control. The 1st half of the movie Shultz character was fantastic. By the 2nd half he was still great, but conflicted. After warning Django not to lose his emotions...he lost his...because Shultz was never "built" for this type of environment.

quote:

---

jackson was a one-trick pony who got old after the initial scene (which was hilarious)

---

What was Brad Pitt? Also...you completely missed the point of Jackson's character. He was "putting on" for the petulant child in Candy in front of everybody. Jackson was the calculated brains behind Candyland. Great turn in acting for Jackson

quote:

---

they were forced and repetitive, like samuel j jackson's character

---

Eh..your opinion. I thought they were well executed to let us know the mind of King Shultz...which brings me to my next point..

quote:

---

but there was no real development to that point. it was like a 180 all of a sudden that created conflict

shultz had issues with slavery and then after doing a good thing just goes, "frick it i'm going to die here making a moral point in front of people who won't give a shite, instead of leaving and coming back to kill them later." like i said, it was just forced

---

Shultz blew it the minute he started antagonizing Candy. Shultz made a mistake. He was told by the lawyer what gets on Calvin's nerves. It was his "Goodbye/frick you" He warned Django about the exact same thing he fell victim for.

Django doesnt "Fall out of character" because he's use to it. As he tells Candy when they kill the guy with the dogs. He's use to that world. King is not. King was traumatized from that incident and even tried to pay off Candy in order to save the guy. Foxx wouldnt let it happen because it would be "out of character"

What we are seeing from the 1st half of the movie...SHULTZ is in control. The 2nd half of the movie exposes Shultz to a world where there was no control. He is the one who caves in on his emotions...not Django. Thats why despite all the terrible shite that happens....Django never pulls his weapon. After insulting Candy...and Candy insisting on shaking his hand in Shultz mind it was going one of two ways. He can shake his hand, continue his "Losing to Candy", let this evil POS go and they all leave. Or he knows he messed up by antagonizing Candy and they wont let him leave alive anymore. So he took his "one shot" and killed the guy .

Thus the line "I couldnt help myself"





Then sets up the Broohilda(sp) saving by Seigfried(sp) story that he told Django early on (story wise)

quote:

---

He had the biggest character of any character. By the end he was displaying his intelligence in a "King Shultz" manner in order to get freedom from the slavers.

---

this change occurred in like 3 scenes and a montage

based on my guess about the flashback at the end, this chunk was SEVERELY cut out of the movie

and he already was doing similar things when they were at don johnson's plantation

quote:

---

Shultz was incredible. "Almost" as good as Hans Lada. He's just more zany, he's so caught in the most elaborate things that it leads to his breakdown at the end. He's use to having the upper hand. He's use to control. The 1st half of the movie Shultz character was fantastic. By the 2nd half he was still great, but conflicted. After warning Django not to lose his emotions...he lost his...because Shultz was never "built" for this type of environment.

---

i think a lot of this is filling in gaps that you want to believe in more than what we actually see on screen

quote:

---

What was Brad Pitt?

---

i didn't bring him up in the good acting part of IB

quote:

---

Shultz blew it the minute he started antagonizing Candy. Shultz made a mistake. He was told by the lawyer what gets on Calvin's nerves. It was his "Goodbye/frick you" He warned Django about the exact same thing he fell victim for.

Django doesnt "Fall out of character" because he's use to it. As he tells Candy when they kill the guy with the dogs. He's use to that world. King is not. King was traumatized from that incident and even tried to pay off Candy in order to save the guy. Foxx wouldnt let it happen because it would be "out of character"

---

and yet the doc does just fine for half of the movie without any effects and then when it's dramatically suitable, he has an emotional breakdown. you can have it one way or the other, but not both. it was a forced change and not real characterization. i mean hell the flashbacks alone were cheap in this regard

quote:

---

I think that this film quite possibly might have set the record for the amount of times nigg** was said

---

when i first heard QT was making a revenge-slave flick i joked that he was going to use the vehicle to say the n-word the most times he could. dude LOVES using the n-word as sort of a "hey i'm post-modern, i can do this' way

quote:

---

Think about the intense scene at the table in the restaurant with Landa, Goebbels, and the cinema owner.

---

underrated arse scene

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.

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:

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"

quote:

---

Could find the interview for it...but I'd have to look a while. It was always meant for Shultz to be flaymoyent and in charge...until he witnesses how shite was done in Mississippi. I heard the interview...then when I saw the movie...it made sense.

---

my second guess was that you read the script online. QT always puts narrative in the script that he leaves out of actual shooting

quote:

---

Isnt possible that he had NO PROBLEM killing guys who were murderers (wanted dead or alive), but upon seeing men savagely killed with hammers, a guy ripped to shreds by dogs (he couldnt save because it was against his character) that his moral fibers would change.

---

it didn't seem to affect him, though. and then he just falls apart when he could get revenge later

he maintains his cool, calm, and collected demeanor from the "dog scene" THROUGH the caper, even when it goes to shite, and then he just dissolves into irrational morality? no way man, no way

if you told me that shultz and django left as victors overcoming all odds and then pulled a "wild bunch" then i'd completely believe it