I always said Stephen is the most complex and fascinating character in the film. It is a shame some great scenes of his got cut because it would of made him all the more memorable. That being said SLJ owned that role and at times think he is even the best in the film.
Cilogy wrote:These are just my personal preference.
One example I gave above was when
Django breaks free from the Australian gang, and those three slaves are looking on in amazement as he rides off with "Who Did That to You" playing in the background. If it ended there, I would have stood up and applauded for a solid 5 minutes.
Another is:
when Django blows up the mansion and looks back at the camera and smiles. That's an awesome shot and would have been a nice place to end it.
It just goes on and on after that. He goes back and does some tricks with his horse. There's a rather unnecessary clip of Shultz telling him he'll be the "fastest gun in the south". Throughout this whole segment I'm thinking, "okay, let's wrap it up already".
But I get it, it's a revenge flick and it's typical Tarantino throwing back to exploitation films, and he wants to be extra gratuitous with the celebration and hero shots to enhance this effect. I understand that, but even Tarantino's own style can be too much.
Retrospectively, I'm surprised it won best screenplay, unless the Academy was going by the original script before the movie was cut down (which I haven't read).
1: Original script
2: Academy gave Tarantino the award, because, if you remember, he wasn't the winner for the Basterds screenplay. Mark Boal won the award for 'The Hurt Locker'.
theseeker9175 wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only one unhappy with the last part. Those last 25 minutes are messy and lower the movie.
They definitely dragged with the exception of one highlight near the end. A part of me was hoping the film would wrap up quickly as the third act kept going.
Rohan wrote:
2: Academy gave Tarantino the award, because, if you remember, he wasn't the winner for the Basterds screenplay. Mark Boal won the award for 'The Hurt Locker'.
Tarantino should have three Oscars for Original Screenplay. Poor guy was shafted by Boal's Hurt Locker.
Hell, Basterds was the best film of 2009 so he was shafted from Best Director and Picture, but I think the Academy wanted to finally award a woman for directorial work which I can definitely condone and do think that's a good move by them.
Rohan wrote:
2: Academy gave Tarantino the award, because, if you remember, he wasn't the winner for the Basterds screenplay. Mark Boal won the award for 'The Hurt Locker'.
Tarantino should have three Oscars for Original Screenplay. Poor guy was shafted by Boal's Hurt Locker.
Hell, Basterds was the best film of 2009 so he was shafted from Best Director and Picture, but I think the Academy wanted to finally award a woman for directorial work which I can definitely condone and do think that's a good move by them.
I concur. Seeing the Academy considering 'The Hurt Locker' over Cameron's AVATAR, I thought that was very nice of the members voting Bigelow's work as the best picture. Avatar is one of my favorite films, but Basterds as well. Bigelow's 'The Hurt Locker' just turned out to be a unique surprise that year, offering a look at war from a different angle and done quite audaciously. After going back to the subtext of Boal's script, I realized why the film garnered attention and I believe that's because the central character Sgt. James is AMERICA. Some did actually claim the film lacked political points, but it doesn't if one decides to see it from the central character's point of view. That is great writing and film-making.
