I saw it Christmas Day. Honestly, I agree with you and say just about the same! The first hour was really good! The second hour was good, but then the third hour took a turn that I didn't care for... the blood and gore was a little much for me. (hate to say too much if someone didn't see it) I watched the old Django about a week later. I was kinda surprised how they had nothing to do with eachother except the song.

I saw it. Like you, I liked the first 2/3 before the two best characters died, then I didnt care about the love story

There was only one original. I'm pretty sure all the spin offs were unauthorized. After seeing it, I don't feel compelled to watch the others.
Might have the same fav character... He threw his hands up after shooting? Oh my gosh! I was sooo mad I almost shouted out loud.. who wrote this? That was disappointing!
I love westerns... whiskey and cigars. lol X-)

"The violence being a bit much for many viewers to handle is actually a great move on the director's part. He's telling us, it's good that this bothers you, this is what separates you from them."

This is something I've always thought people misunderstood about Tarantino movies (and a few other directors) - it's meant to shock you. It's meant to make you say I could never do that to someone. I've always kind of felt my ethics and morals settle in a little bit deeper after watching a Tarantino movie and I think he does very well when he portrays the differences between honor, revenge, and senseless violence.

And this is why I love you. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

That is the beauty of brilliant writing. I didn't walk out of that movie with my husband and best friend gabbing endlessly about every detail. Each of us, and bear in mind we had been actively conversing about the movie and Tarrantino in general for a full two hours before it started, came out very quiet and contemplative. We had to process it, and we had to peek out from behind an adrenaline cocoon. But once we were able to talk freely again, it was a discussion of deep moral issues and how Tarrantino used the language, the characters, and the violence to communicate them to the audience.

Two peas in a pod, I tell ya. I smell a Tarantino marathon coming up!

I've never walked away from a movie of his where I didn't have some type of really deep session of introspection. It almost always starts out with "just what made his brain go in that direction?"...I'm fascinated by films like this. I definitely have to go see it. And guess what? I have two free tickets to a theater that I've been sitting on for almost four years ( because there hasn't been a movie I deemed worthy of watching since I bought them).

I agree with most everything you said, but in ways I still think he is a bit overrated. I did notice Leonardo's hand bleeding and wondered WTF happened. I didn't recall seeing him hit anything sharp. Makes sense now.

SPOILER ALERT (Don't read if you plan to see the movie). That means you Stormy!

The movie did stick with me in good and bad ways for a good 24hrs at least. I was still talking about it and am now and that is good. The audience applauded at the end (something that happens on rare occasions). I don't mind violence to make a point or to make you feel the pain. I just don't like Jerry Bruckheimer type over the top type CGI ridiculous stunts and explosions all the time. I did feel the tension throughout the movie (well 2/3rds of it). The dialogue, camerawork,editing, cinematography, acting were definitely top notch. Dialogue and camera work are definitely Tarrantino's forte IMO. When Django was about to get castrated, I recalled The ear scene in Reservoir dogs, but was glad it turned out differently.

I just think I didn't care for the plot turn, the inconsistent character behaviors and the "over the top" shootout. Sure there were some laughs and that was fine, but the firestorm of bullets and endless influx of white guys coming through the door of the plantation was unnecessary (where did they all come from all the sudden anyway?_) Candieland the plantation seemed to be a good ride away from the big house. It was like a good movie turned video game at that point.

I could nitpick and complain about the inconsistent scenery locations too (one minute in the golden california hills, the next in Missisippi plains). One minute in the rockies, the next in Tennessee. Kinda reminded me of Dukes of Hazard.

The handshake thing, just seemed like a Typical Tarrantino ploy. (ie: the watch in pulp fiction, Swords in Kill bill). Not that there had to be a happy gushy ending, but it sorta came out of the blue and seemed uncharacteristically reckless what ensued.

The mandango fighting idea seemed really stupid and the scene fighting in the parlor seemed out of place (they would have torn up that room fighting for their lives). Surely they could have just rolled in and offered a few grand for the slave in the first place. The German speaking bit would have been reason enough ( to go alone as well). So from that standpoint, the plot seemed contrived to me. I felt Dr Shultz was too cool and calculating to have done what he did. Even he said taking Django to Candieland was too dangerous. He was always a step or two ahead of any foe up until then.

I'm not sure it was necessary to kill the 3 aussies either, when he could have used them as pawns. He was after the girl, not the money.

For the record, I loved Pulp Fiction (saw 3 times in theater), Reservoir dogs, Jackie Brown. Inglorious Basterds was ok. Four rooms not good, Kill Bill I caught bits of, but wasn't into it. Grindhouse didn't interest me in the least.