Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*
I loved it up until the last act. I thought the ending was sort of abrubt and not very clever. I'll need to see it a few more times before I decide if I like it better than Inglorious Batturds...
we saw it last night and I completely agree. (spoilers) It felt like everything from the (first) house bloodbath on was a totally different movie. I was so with it up until that point...after that, it was fun, but it felt piled on. Like Tarantino worked so hard to get a tense, tight, entertaining story, and then when he got to that point in the editing room he just couldn't control himself anymore and wanted bloodbath after bloodbath. I get that he wanted to wrap up those stories and I'm glad Django got his vengeance, and I actually really liked how the last 20 minutes or so felt like a real take on a spaghetti western, but it was so different from everything else that it kind of took me out. And took away from some of the gravity of the earlier stuff.
Also my favorite part was during the tense library handshake moment when "Do You Hear the People Sing?" came blaring in from Les Mis next door.
Mostly I loved it though. What Tarantino does with music and dialogue, I could just watch all day. I was trying to understand last night why I respond so favorably to Tarantino and so badly to Wes Anderson when in some ways they're very similar, very stylized. There are a number of reasons (I think Tarantino is way less sterile, for example, and not just because of the blood) but one of them is that I think Tarantino is just able to get so much out of his actors. Anderson's actors usually do fine, but they do fine within the confines of his world; I feel like he fits the actors to his vision. Whereas I feel like Tarantino lets his actors run with what they bring to the table and then builds the movie around it. Some of the performances in this movie were off the charts. I thought Leonardo DiCaprio was fantastic.