Originally Posted by Mr. Jabbar
I see what you mean, when I say linear I don't mean it has to go the pulp fiction or reservoir dogs way being told in disorder but rather at least have some plot twist. Everything and I mean EVERYTHING unfolds as expected, wtf is that for a 2:40 hr long movie, from Quentin nonetheless.
I agree that most everything works out just as the viewer likely wants it to (except for at least one big part), but that was one of my favorite aspects of the movie. In an ode to great western films where it's a hero fighting against vile slave owners and country hicks (aka the classic good guy vs. bad guy), I had no interest in coming across some bizarre plot twist where Hilda ends up being Marcellus Wallace's girlfriend or something.
For me, there were enough bumps in the road to leave me on the edge of my seat. I was hoping things would work out, but there were many scenes in the movie that left me with doubt until the end. Django, for as talented as he was, was not able to just waltz in and have his way. Through perseverance he was able to prevail and subsequently, it felt like I was riding along on an exciting journey featuring much tribulation and most rewarding, a healthy dose of triumph.
I think it's just the nature of the film. It was a western about a protagonist winning back his girl. It opens itself up to some straight up hero actions. I think the over-the-top excellence, cleverness, and intelligence from Django was again an ode to the types of movies that influenced the creation of this one. It can come across a little campy, but I think that was the point, and I loved it.