Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 50. Posted by markofcain

    on 15 Jun 2013 13:11

    Always love the use of the over the top dialogue in his films and this was no exception.Certainly i do not hear it as a distraction,just a very skilled director/writer who happens to love language.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 50: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 50: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 49. Posted by juliusjonzon

    on 30 Jan 2013 23:10

    Just came back from watching this s@#%&%&%!t...
    I am angry, dissapointed and dissgusted at the same time!
    It's one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. Although I seldom make my way to the movie theater, when I do, I try to bet safe but this time it was a dissaster.
    It was cheap jokes, to long, weak story and I did not find the acting as good as I had been told.
    I saw it in Germany (not dubbed) and this would never have worked if the story was "jewish husband wants to get his wife back from Auschwitz".
    I am/was a Tarantino fan but this was tasteless.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 49: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 49: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 48. Posted by Stephen Eadon

    on 25 Jan 2013 04:19

    First: Some epithets that have implications too absurd to consider:

    Adolescent – Romeo and Juliet
    Self-Indulgent – Ulysses
    Frustrating – Life (And I don't mean the Eddie Murphy Film)
    Exhausting - Hamlet

    Second: Why does everyone here seem to think that Tarantino has become less like Tarantino. It is quite obvious that you simply don't like his films. Fine. But this isn't enough. You feel the need to imply that he's made some kind of mistake. The same happens with most distinctive filmakers. The fact is many of the things that Tarantino is called are in a literal sense true. His films are kind of adolescent - but how is that neccesarily a critisicm. Film critics have a virtually absurd task in that they feel they have to make a personal assessment and at the same time reccomend a film to a broad audience.

    I am increasingly feeling that he is simply not reccomending films that I really like such as:

    Django Unchained
    Synecdoche, New York
    Inglourious Basterds

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 48: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 48: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 47. Posted by John-Rammstein-McKenna

    on 24 Jan 2013 12:48

    I felt Django had the same problems Inglorious had. The film is full of great scene's that draw you in, are tense and are visually enjoyable. However, both films are a sequence of great scenes instead of being two great films.
    Tarantino finds it hard to part with a lot of his work, and what the audience ends up getting is a great film that has been spread out and lost inside what has become only a good film.

    Basically Tarantino is like eating a 5 dollar shake with a fork. The taste hits the spot! But takes so long to eat, that each ingredient settles into parts instead of being a perfectly mixed 5 dollar shake! Instead you are left with the reminder of how good it could taste.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 47: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 47: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 46. Posted by Sapphire77

    on 20 Jan 2013 01:21

    I've seen it too now and I see it as an embarassement. What on Earth happened to Tarantino? When his directing credit appeared on the screen at the end of the film I laughed in disbelief; how can he think this is a good film? Don't get me wrong, I wasn't snickering. I was just baffled. It's such a shame that he didn't make the movie out of which e.g. the "hand shake" scene seemingly comes. And the film's moral stance is inconsistent; he's not challenging the audience, he's just confusing it when it comes to this. The film has moments which like I said seem to come out of a good movie. Like e.g. the scene where Django makes his first kill as a bounty hunter. When that scene came by I thought Quentin had finally made a decent film again but I was disappointed. And that really made me a little sad as I would have loved to have seen a movie which is as good and interesting as that scene.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 46: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 46: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 45. Posted by Sala

    on 19 Jan 2013 22:10

    This was exactly my fear and though I haven't seen it yet, I already find myself agreeing with you Mark. Limitations and restrictions made Tarantino's style great, things he no longer has, unfortunately. Be it an editor, co-writer or his postman, whoever, he needs to spend time with someone who's willing to tell him 'no' once in a while (for me this applies to christopher nolan too) It's obvious Tarantino knows character and story and the history of cinema, but maybe too much?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 45: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 45: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 44. Posted by Stephen Eadon

    on 18 Jan 2013 23:56

    I am consistently struck by how much film critics simply don’t like the experience of watching films. Really, how difficult is it to sit in a cinema for 165 minutes? I happen to like long films. I like 2001 because it takes an afternoon to watch. I like Barry Lyndon because after a viewing I feel like I’ve just induced two novels. I like Vertigo because it drags, because that becomes the emotional point of Novak’s character. Saving Private Ryan seems to fly by even though it most certainly doesn’t. And, after just watching Django Unchained for the third time (and the first time back with a British audience – an interestingly different experience than with an American one), I like it not just because it’s funny, and shocking, and moving, and fun, but because it is genuinely exhausting, WHICH IS THE POINT!
    If the extent of the film were a mistake, then it could be called ill-discipline. But it is quite obviously on purpose.
    I think the problem is that, as you say, you “don’t want to come out of a Tarantino film feeling exhausted”. Which, you may notice, good Doctor, is a statement about you. Which reminds me of that stupid phrase I keep hearing self-indulgent.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 44: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 44: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 43. Posted by jonlindsaymiles

    on 18 Jan 2013 18:37

    Having now seen my first Tarantino film to the end (I was bored with Reservoir Dogs after an hour of not much but gore), I can see his form is comic book, but for those who like two-dimensional (at least) characters, we are left with a surprisingly emotionless film here, considering the subject matter. And how does a man who is never allowed to ride a horse mount and ride one with aplomb at once?

    There is some fine dialogue, but there is also a lot of ponderous time spent with not much happening; the lack of any interior life in the characters leaves these pauses without tension or suspense. Not my kind of film, clearly.

    In fact, I enjoyed the choice of music more than anything else.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 43: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 43: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 42. Posted by MCos

    on 12 Jan 2013 11:08

    I watched a screener of Django Unchained last night. I thought it was pretty bad and am now quite staggered by the praise it has received. It feels every minute of its nearly three hours and then some.

    This film has no characters in it. Django has nothing but some bad memories (the flashbacks reminded me unpleasantly of Beatrix's flashbacks in Kill Bill) and then, inexplicably and jarringly, nothing but bravado. His wife might as well not even be on screen - she has nothing approaching a personality at all. Shultz has nothing but Quentin Tarantino monologues (nothing as good as the first scene of Inglourious...) and an utterly arbitrary and unexplored desire to 'help' the slaves, in fact an utterly arbitrary motivation for doing anything (there is scant justification for the ridiculous convolutedness of the 'plan' to get Django's wife back for example). Candie's character is similarly clumsily patched together and his almost-self-parodying-QUENTIN-TARANTINO-monologue is the moment when the film definitively jumps the shark. Samuel L Jackson just plays an incredibly elderly version of himself.

    The plot is unnecessarily convoluted, it feels like whole scenes were just added-in to boost the running time so it could be touted as a tribute to 'epic' western: the scene of Quentin Tarantino's appearance is a good example of this, as is the KKK scene. Additionally those parts of the plot that were 'necessary' don't meet the basic standards of logic (someone, please, explain what the logic behind the 'mandingo-hoax-plan' was?!?!?)

    The music was a gaudy hotch-potch that just annoyed me throughout. Tarantino chose his music brilliantly in his early work - tracks that felt woven into the fabric of the worlds he was creating which became more iconic by association. Now it feels like he is choosing by throwing darts at his record collection. There is too much music and most of the time it is, just, distracting.

    Finally, this film reminds me of nothing so much as Kill Bill part 2; bloated, packed with 'clever' film references, totally lacking in stylistic unity, and in the end just a dull patchwork of extremely violent set pieces and Quentin Tarantino monologues.

    That said - Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, and Leonardo Di Caprio are excellent actors and Uma Thurman is unbelievably terrible so it is, to be fair, much better than Kill Bill 2. It still isn't 'good' though.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 42: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 42: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 41. Posted by Stephen Eadon

    on 10 Jan 2013 14:53

    I simply do not understand the criticism that a film is too long. It would be a reasonable criticism if you pointed to which parts of the film you considered superfluous, but you did not do this. As a blanket criticism it is absurd. Is 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly' too long? If so, which parts would you remove? Which parts of 'Django Unchained' would you also excise?

    After watching the film several times I cannot find a part of it that is not fundamental to the whole. In fact I was struck on the second viewing by how tightly cut it was (especially the winter sequence, which ends incidentally on perhaps the most inspiring use of expository on screen text I've seen in a good year or so). It seems that if anything there were elements of the story that could have been expanded upon.

    My view is that this is one of Tarantino's best films. I think it is a very interesting companion piece to 'Inglourious Basterds' (I'm thinking here of the interesting German connection - in this the Germans are the moral standard. Also, I always thought the mention of slavery in the tavern sequence in 'Inglourious Basterds' was the most shocking and brilliant piece of writing - it was also true that the Nazis were constantly going on about American hypocrisy on that front). Nonetheless, I really liked that film as well, and you, I gather, did not.

    As a last point it seems that in Django Tarantino has been quite self disciplined. (As an aside, can somebody please explain to me what "self-indulgent" actually means, and how precisely it is a criticism). The linear story, for example, is part of the Spaghetti Western style, and its good he stuck to this. Also, I was really impressed by how moving the connection between Dr. King Shultz and Django Freeman was - the moments of humanity in Waltz's face during the Beethoven seen I feel demonstrated an emotional maturity that we haven't previously seen in a Tarantino film.

    It also is extremely funny, and the action is hilariously ridiculous.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 41: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 41: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next