Question: Would you watch this...

I watched it last night and would watch it again fairly soon - the first viewing one is following the plot closely, in subsequent viewings I would think I will be admiring the performances, script and cinematography more as I know what is going to happen.

Yes.

No because I didn't think it was as good as Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Django & Death Proof. I watch all five of those over and over. This was definitely better then Inglourious Basterds & Jackie Brown though. I'm sure I'll watch it a few more times in my lifetime but it wasn't one that makes me want to go back to it. A little slow and a little bit of a rehash of all his films. I personally would love to see him use some new actors and stop using the same ones over and over.

I'm not trying to get on Tarantino's case... we watch a certain kind of movie from a different time, the exploitation film and he's trying to revive it, and a lot of times he revives blaxpoitation films too, or that aspect within exploitation films... the racism I felt was excessive and kind of hard to watch, but it was a great film too, preferred it to the last one I saw from him which was also pretty good though... but I preferred this one.


It was a little racist which kinds of keeps me from rewinding it and watching it again right away, but then again I watched it mindfully the first time so there isn't as much of an urge... but exclusionary practices are the worst racism and at least folks from different backgrounds are getting screen time... so he knows how to walk the line where you put up with it, because exclusion is worse, and it's a sign of a different time with arguably better movies in some regards... In some ways. But it would be more appealing if he had cut it back a little. It was excessive but I'm not trying to make a big deal of it other than it would be better if the prejudice was toned down this time.

At the end of the day, I think if he cut the prejudice down to half or more in this film, and everything else was about the same, but the effect was still there selectively, the film would have been at least a quarter star better, or maybe even half a star. I'm not calling him names but he overdid it for the maximum effect, and for example this isn't an emancipation story where this kind of talk is warranted, or they wouldn't be THAT racist in most Western films. THAT much to a bounty hunter.

America today has different values regarding gun control but movies from those times, a man like this would have that respect that he has a gun and he's dangerous and then maybe somebody would have mouthed off like that but those values in the seventies and before was more along the lines that because he has a gun no one can take away his equality... and within those lines to a guy like this someone may have been a little racist for like five minutes just to say he can go over the line but he would be afraid of pushing it.

America today has different values and there's more of a push to be more like Canada, but just the pretend Canada because those guys in American TV can also flip out and riot real quick if you cross a line and that's why you better smile... but now there is more value in how Canada pretends to be before they flip, and guns are not seen as an equaling playing field.

Whether or not he made is a mistake, is he trying to capture the past or portray it, in the way of irony, to a more modern audience... but what that really means is less value on guns as a symbol of equality or at least equaling, equaling the playing field for fair game. That mental value. I don't know if I could make a case to him but to me it was excessive and if you think about it compared to those types of movies, that's a big part of why.

Edit: I just saw this movie today and hours later I still feel the same way about the racism being unreal but moreso... I would give it 4/5 but it could easily be much closer to 4.5/5 or nine out of ten without the prejudice. Because the way it was displayed against Samuel L Jackson's character, big scary bounty with a gun that knows how to get things done within legal boundaries that you really are risking a lot pissing him off, and it wasn't just one guy but the majority of the character's dismissed him racist grounds... there could have been another black man standing next to him... or the owner of the store. People made racist comments to her behind her back but not to her face when she owns a store and she used to have a prejudicial sign in front of the store herself showing that she's not the victim and if someone was going to flip on her, they're risking getting told off or nasty behavior too... but they respected her domain and that she could refuse service to her face. But they would not respect a gun?

That's some modern wannabe Canada at face value BS when most of them guys have guns to hunt (just not telling you that they are hunting intruders - who are usually human - if anything at all) but face value Canada "we can make it real and improve the country" disrespect for the equalizing effect of guns, but you respect a store owner, once you get past the offensiveness of the prejudice, I realize that it did take a lot of the reality of the movie. It just made it less believable, harder to live within that fantasy given how absurdly the prejudice was placed at the guy they couldn't be that way too... in the 1800s when they had respect for guns. I guess nowadays it's like "if we give into that the gun toting maniacs win" but you don't want them to win the other way...

I have a theory that the questionable racism in this movie (where if he wanted to be just as racist but more believable, the coach driver could have been black and everyone could have been dismissing him in Jackson's presence, but even if they kept the racism levels the same it's a better movie)... I think that racism in this movie may have been affect by a personal working relationship between Jackson and Tarantino where in a way that is in a sense beyond racial prejudice Jackson is like Tarantino's shaft... He gets shafted but then you pay every penny... And if he died then everyone else did too but there was more of a chance that he lived than anybody other than the sheriff... and there's a way they could easily have been rescued and blame the massacre on Daisy's gang... but because of this personal relationship where this actor gets 'Shafted' and then has his revenge with the interest building up from messing with him in the first place, big mistake, people were treating the character in a way where the believability of the character was compromised... Jackson played the part beautifully but I really think the character was treated in such an unbelievable manner for a gun toting maniac that says he kills racist white people and is smart enough to get away with it legally anyway, and then they all talk to him like that... it is unbelievable.

Think of Pulp Fiction. Jackson gets into "you're messing with god" mode and the wastes dudes that I think were not racists... but they were engaging in risky behaviors as if they wanted to know how far they can push it, so in a way it's their wish to know or their pact with god and Jackson's character got shafted in some manner but he was smart enough to frame it in a way where he could do what he wanted but be more of an observer because he tries to evoke the issue, what if I was not here? What would you do? Like what about a hit and run, who knows? But probably if those guys are willing to steal from the mafia like that and take risk as such, it may or not be them, but somebody is likely to die from such a risky presence... So he tries to convince his victims of the same and keep his part impersonal. So he gets away with it too. But he is Tarantino's shaft. But it would have been better for example if his shafting was hearing all these people make fun of a colored cab driver, or the former propierter of the business... like just hearing that stuff or maybe a comment or two was enough to get all them white people and that latino guy killed. That would have been more entertaining blaxpoitation and the whites and latino would have been exploited more effectively as well.

In this film for example, what we know about that confederate soldier that was shot when he presented a clear and imminent danger, is that Jackson's character heard a lot of terrible stories about that guy to execute his son and as such someone may have done something like that to his son... So Jackson follows the same formula. I'll get my way because I made it about issues, not myself, and you were manipulated by your own agenda.. or something like that. He gets shafted and then gets his way by setting things up to go a certain way but trying to evoke impartiality in the moment...


If they make a sequel because he could have lived, then do it that way, the right way. Or that is my suggestion. Just hearing people making fun of others, a guy like that, a trained bounty hunter that's good about eyeing up the situation and the the individual's character, and capitolizing on his desires by letting the situation pan out... just hearing people be racist to others, that's enough... that's more, it would have been a way better movie, you could add a star or about on top of what just cutting down what do, making it the right way... that no one would mouth off that much to a guy like that with that reputation, but even saying it around him is getting away with it... or heavily towards that, and then maybe a guy walks into a bar and they're having a shoot out, don't know who he is, and then bam or something like that, but he should have more respect with his markmanship. Or maybe if they did that in a hateful 8 part 2. Cuz the likelyhood of someone stopping at a store within a day or two is not that unlikely so who knows?