inri222

I like the guys films, especially his first 3. He does have an ego bigger than his forehead and can be self-indulgent.

Solid Snake

As much as I liked DU, it does feel like there are missing narrative elements to a point.

STILL... STILL... Waiting for TWBA.

Mike86

I love Tarantino but this is unfortunately sort of true. He likes to talk about all these awesome projects that a bunch of us want to see, but it seems like he either doesn't act on them or takes forever to actually release them if he does. Also I sort of agree I'd like to see "The Whole Bloody Affair" version of Kill Bill a bit more than this too or possibly a Volume 3 but would take this too if it happened.

TomOpus

and talk and talk and talk

Josh-da-man

Agreed. Django Unchained was too long and paced like a glacier.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the loss of Sally Menke. DU just feels so different than everything else Tarantino has directed; it's stilted and lifeless and wanders all over the place.

hanshotfirst1138

I think part of it has to do with the Weinsteins treating him like King Midas. I think QT might benefit from a more discerning producer with a big stick saying "Cut this scene. It goes on too long."

Then again, I like Peter Jackson, so what do I know?

Dr. DVD

I have learned to take anything QT says with a grain of salt until I actually see the opening credits role on something.

Where was there evidence that Candie's sister was phony?

Troy Stiffler

Yea. QT puts all kinds of talk out there to keep his options open. He talks about doing 007 or Friday the 13th movies. It feels like he started talking about Inglorious Basterds in 2002.

d2cheer

RichC2

I actually think it's one of his most thoroughly entertaining movies

Ash Ketchum

Agreed. If Josh had seen DJANGO with a packed audience the way I did and seen how well it worked with them and kept the crowd engaged and eager to devour its twists and turns, I doubt he would call it "stilted and lifeless." It happens to be a very witty and funny movie and the audience got it and responded to the humor throughout.

But I think that's true of most of QT's movies, i.e. they work with audiences. I've seen all of them with audiences and the only film he directed that may have gotten away from its audience was DEATH PROOF.

inri222

Interesting theory

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comm...ppens_because/

The ending to "Django Unchained" happens because King Schultz just fundamentally didn't understand how the world works.

When we first meet King Schultz, he’s a larger-than-life figure – a cocky, European version of Clint Eastwood’s Man with No Name. On no less than three occasions, stupid fucking rednecks step to him, and he puts them down without breaking a sweat. But in retrospect, he’s not nearly as badass as we’re led to believe. At the end of the movie, King is dead, and Django is the one strutting away like Clint Eastwood.

I mean, we like King. He’s cool, he kills the bad guy. He rescues Django from slavery. He hates racism. He’s a good guy. But he’s also incredibly arrogant and smug. He thinks he knows everything. Slavery offends him, like a bad odor, but it doesn’t outrage him. It’s all a joke to him, he just waves it off. His philosophy is the inverse of Dark Helmet’s: Good will win because evil is dumb. The world doesn’t work like that.

King’s plan to infiltrate Candyland is stupid. There had to be an easier way to save Hildy. I’ve seen some people criticize this as a contrivance on Tarantino’s part, but it seems perfectly in character to me. Schultz comes up with this convoluted con job, basically because he wants to play a prank on Candie. It’s a plan made by someone whose intelligence and skills have sheltered him from ever being really challenged. This is why Django can keep up his poker face and King finds it harder and harder. He’s never really looked that closely at slavery or its brutality; he’s stepped in, shot some idiots and walked away.

Candie’s victory shatters his illusions, his wall of irony. The world isn’t funny anymore, and good doesn’t always triumph anymore, and stupid doesn't always lose anymore, and Schultz couldn’t handle that. This is why King’s European pretensions eat at him so much, why he can’t handle Candie’s sister defiling his country’s national hero Beethoven with her dirty slaver hands. His murder of Candie is his final act of arrogance, one last attempt at retaining his superiority, and one that costs him his life and nearly dooms his friends. Django would have had no problem walking away broke and outsmarted. He understands that the system is fucked. He can look at it without flinching.

But Schultz does go out with one final victory, and it isn’t murdering Candie; It’s the conversation about Alexandre Dumas. Candie thinks Schultz is being a sore loser, and he’s not wrong, but it’s a lot more than that. It’s because Candie is not a worthy opponent; he’s just a dumb thug given power by a broken system. That’s what the Dumas conversation is about; it’s Schultz saying to Candie directly, “You’re not cool, you’re not smart, you’re not sophisticated, you’re just a piece of shit and no matter how thoroughly you defeated me, you are never going to get anything from me but contempt.”

And that does make me feel better. No matter how much trouble it caused Django in the end, it comforts me to think that Calvin died knowing that he wasn’t anything but a piece of shit.