Sometimes I have to try and remember most folks are untraveled, unintelligent, or devoid of cinema background. When a genre of a movie comes out, such as a sci-fi or a western, I have to remember that there are a few youngsters out there that either don't remember the originals or the genres, or indeed have never even seen a genre of this type as it's their first time. Cinematic and historical virgins. I was one once when I was 6. This is the case for those who strongly recommended Django Unchained by Tarantino.
Tarantino is the equivalent of a Puff Daddy circa the Godzilla (1998) soundtrack. He gets permission to steal other people's stuff from the 1970's, then repackages it badly by wrapping used Christmas paper over it hastily and without grace, like a retarded kid trying to remember how mommy and daddy did it years ago, then using a lot of scotch-tape in the form of silly violence and trying to make argumentative conflict by reciting his own internal struggles with himself in the form of drama. He endlessly fails on all levels with each movie he's done, and it's sad. He's like a desperate, impatient 14-year-old teen trying to play cowboys and Indians from a movie his parents wouldn't let him see that he snuck glances at through his almost-closed bedroom door, then the next morning ran outside to try to lampoon it with his stupid friends without understanding 99% of it.
Now some get it right, as in the case of Machete or Hobo with a Shotgun. THIS is correct. Tarantino wishes he could attempt this.
Tarantino has tried time and time again to recapture that '70s shtick but never succeeds. I honestly believe though he loves the genre he always copies (such as Bruce Lee vs. The Ninja as Kill Bill which he copied frame-for-frame). His finished work has holes and he tries to patch that up with stolen music from another time. Why does he never have his own films scored originally instead of stealing the entire soundtrack from other '70s movies?! Cheap! Maybe one in-homage but ALL OF IT? Why, loser?
Honestly, I've never seen a worse western. All of the songs used were either from other westerns with the exception of a classic rock song by Jim Croce, I Got a Name and a few rap songs. Nothing was original. Why couldn't he have one original good song?
Django Unchained has (thankfully) absolutely nothing to do with either the Django series or anything Django. The song selection, though incredibly stolen from such westerns as Two Mules for Sister Sara and totally dissing Ennio Morricone from the previous movie Inglorious Bastards which he also ripped-off from the original. Ennio was going to do the soundtrack for IG but QT was too impatient (as usual). It'd be as if God wanted to give you all the superpowers you could ever dream of but you were too impatient for that so instead you just bought a Superman cape from Walmart. Idiot. Ennio = Pure, Immediate Gold. Fool!
What a good Spaghetti Western soundtrack should be... imagery and all.
Django Unchained makes up it's own mind that it's its own movie and not of the series. It's annoying in the same way if a new movie came out that was a sci-fi called "Darth Vader against the Jedi" and then there's a Hello Kitty playing Vader voiced by a fag. Still, I can choke it down.. barely. Acting was flat. Violence was over-done and silly and disobeyed every law of physics. Storyline was lame and implausible. Samuel Jackson should have got a Golden Raspberry award for worst supporting actor of all time. Accents came and went throughout. Historical inaccuracies were infinite.
Now I suspect he wanted to make a spaghetti western in the same vein as Sergio Leone, though it's quite possible this is not the case. I also suspect he used the name Django to spark interest and he even had Franco Nero in it who seemed a bit sad because he too knew how it sucked. The film is missing all of the soul of a spaghetti western, like pasta with no sauce. Vacant of spirit, the movie plods at 2 hours 45 minutes painfully. It's barely watchable as characters moose their lines.
Here's a list of the inconsistencies that bothered me, plus a few more I found later:
Okay, so Tarin-fail-o is not a historian by any means. Fine. Nor can he make a film without Ed Wood-like obvious failings. There are websites out there that bring up hundreds of goofy mistakes. Now if he did this all on purpose (perhaps a few were, maybe) then it's kinda cool in a cheap way, but I suspect his contractors for information as consultants were high as he was when he did it. People think pot helps creativity but look how many mistakes? Hope he never becomes a surgeon lest we all die of brain cancer. Like everyone knows, I go to a movie not to NOT think but TO think! Tarantino caters to the uninformed and unintelligent virgin movie-go'ers and tween cinematic beginners with no background in anything.
What a piece of steaming shite. Fail! I'd rather watch Tyler Perry's anything. Man, there's so many good westerns out there. Please, viewers, watch every other spaghetti western out there first before you decide this is a good movie. Actually, if you haven't seen any others, I have great news for you, all of them are better than this! You're in for a treat!
Final grade: F+
No comments:
Post a Comment