Disappointment :( DJANGO

Today we watched two films Django and I don’t know what rubbish the other one was. Ok, Sukiyaki Western Django was a disappointment for me. I was looking for more, and it just wasn’t there for me. The action shots are amazing and the digitalization was terrific and the sound editing was marvelous but it lacked everything else. Sukiyaki Western Django is not a homage to the spaghetti western it is a desecration. I have seen a couple of Takashi Miike other films such as the 13 Assasins and Audition and I dont know where this film came from. I just feel that its is not supposed to even be taken seriously which heavily disappoints me. Also another let down came in the acting, it felt so unnatural and faked. The horrible english of most of the characters makes the movie hard to understand and I feel that it was a mistake to even attempt it. But in my strong disapproval of this movie, i feel that for a 3 million dollar budget it had high production value but I also thought that Miike was high on a bad LSD trip when making this. I am just at a lost for words. I feel that this movie was not supposed to be a comedy but i was typically laughing at how bad it was. sorry if this sounds like a rant but I don’t think it deserves to be in the same category as the original Django or Django Unchained.  Sukiyaki Western Django reminded me of most Robert Rodriguez movies because he isnt trying to make them into something that it isnt however i feel Miike tried to make Western Django into something that it isn’t thus a very mixed reaction. See if he made a film that was not meant to be taken seriously like the cliche dialogue in del Toro’s Pacific Rim it would get a better reaction in general. Not my cup of Saki



5 thoughts on “Disappointment :( DJANGO

  1. Okay, so you said initially said the film was not supposed to be taken seriously, and that disappointed you. Then you said “if he made a film that was not meant to be taken seriously” it would “get a better reaction.” So, I don’t really know where you are coming from with that, nor with your comment calling the film a “desecration.” Personally, I think the film did a fine job of paying homage to the Western. The sets, characters, costumes, plot, and shots all scream the genre, and we’ve talked about plenty of them on this blog and in class. With regard to acting, the whole joke is how unnatural it is. That’s the point. They are Japanese actors speaking English in dialogue straight out of a Western. So no, it is not supposed to be taken uber seriously, but instead, it simply adds to the homage. I also think you are mistaking Miike’s style for “a bad LSD trip.” The quirky style is what makes the film. It is supposed to be different; the entertainment relies on its form rather than realism and continuity. Even Leone has been critiqued for his style. The final duel in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, is drawn out to a nearly immeasurable length. Other scenes are extended in the same way. We could call him crazy for this, or we could simply consider it bold. He made something truly, uniquely his own. And that is what Miike is doing. It is the bold directors that are set apart, and so I applaud him. He, like Leone and Corbucci, made something new out of the Western formula.

  2. I really agree with you on the comment that as far as cinematography and mise-en-scene, Sukiyaki Django was well done. It takes many interesting angles and incorporates many of the elements of Western filmmaking, such as the wide shots when the enemies approach. Overall, like you said, it is well made for the budget it has. The old Django, on the other hand, feels much more Western to me, as I’m sure it did to everyone else. I feel like, (as I think you do) although the Sukiyaki Django incorporates some elements of the Western, it tries to hard too break the mold.
    I don’t like Westerns at all, so I would’ve thought I’d prefer the Sukiyaki since it is so different and out of the box. Instead, I just don’t like either, though I can respect how useful they are in identifying themes and recurring elements of the Western.

  3. I agree with the overall confusion aspect of Sukiyaki Western Django. I really thought I was being judge-y and ignorant, but I’m glad to see that somebody agrees. The acting to me seemed like it could be nothing but a parody. Since it was so closely related to the plotline and had specific details such as the same cross from the grave, it primarily felt to me like they were making fun of the original Django. I felt as though the movie was done very well in terms of technology, set, and costumes, but it was just too over the top for me to take it seriously. I definitely felt a hint of satire throughout the whole film and it was very distracting. All I remember from the movie was the bizarre scenes, and this made it hard for me to follow what was actually going on between characters. It seemed rather unnecessary for the amount of money that went into production.

  4. The Sukiyaki Western Django simply felt like a fevered bipolar dream. The ridiculous action sequences (and not in the good way, either) odd (though admittedly nice) lighting, and perhaps most, the random and eclectic layering of new plot devices all over the film. There did not seem to be any rhyme or reason to them. The Gatling gun shows up out of nowhere, and really seems like an excuse to jump around and shout “this is why we named it Django!”. The man in the white, who used crossbows and katanas, bothered me more than he should have, and the equally random “warrior chosen by some goddess” was as lazy as it was crazy. I didn’t see the necessity, either. The poor attempts to add comedy, such as the multiple personality Sheriff, and the “call me Henry” sections were a miss, though that is probably more symptomatic of our American tastes in comedy.

  5. I think it is important to note that Sukiyaki Western Django is not only a homage, but a parody and critique of the genre. So, that in and of itself means that the movie is not supposed to be taken seriously, and even traditional Spaghetti Westerns arguably don’t take themselves too seriously either. Sukiyaki should be seen as satirical, because that’s what parody is — a satire (critical commentary) that mimics what it is critiquing. So when it comes to judging how good or bad the film is, it is useful to keep it within its context. Just like we learned in class, genres are used to describe and analyze a film, not evaluate it. Whether or not one loves it or hate it, it is easy to appreciate how the film critiques and breaks certain conventions of the genre in different ways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s