• 130 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

in jersey tickets are 11.50. Movie ticket prices are insane over here

#52 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@Dookysharpgun said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

*SPOILERS WELCOME*

lots of violence. disjointed plot. Over indulgent dialogue. Ran an hour too long. And I couldn't tell if D'jango was just written poorly or if Jamie Foxx was just playing a terrible slave...

If you want to see a western movie that stars a great black lead character that is strong, smart, likable, looks racism and hate in the face without flinching, a movie with a great plot, great soundtrack, fantastic supporting cast, interesting love story, and if you're not offended with the use of the word nigger....Go see Blazing Saddles. I think its on netflix. There, I just saved you 14 bucks.

or not...*shrug* what can i say.

Sounds like a Quentin Tarantino movie to me. He seems to be riding off of past hype to make these films, Inglorious Bastards was fucking awful and it also ran an hour too long. More power to the people who like his movies, I just think he's more interested in his ideas than he is making them actually appealing to an audience. Concepts are great, how you convey them in a movie is completely different. I won't be going to see it, I've got no love for him, I just feel like he's so full of himself, and has so many of the mainstream 'artsy' critics on his side, that his movies get far, far too much hype for what they are...and ultraviolent, uncompromising look into something that needs a more delicate touch than he can offer.

respect.

#53 Posted by Brendan (7662 posts) -

I freaking loved it.

#54 Edited by EXTomar (4441 posts) -

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@EXTomar said:

I am confused by the sentiment "We have to handle X with respect" and then not want to talk about it. I don't think Django was made to make anyone feel guilty but like Inglorious Bastards it is a revenge story using real world "evil" as the enemy and I don't see anything wrong with that in IB so why can't Django use it as well?

Don't believe the point to Django is to make anyone feel guilty about slavery but instead to create a situation where you can revel in Django The Hero getting revenge.

I never said Django couldn't use it. That's actually why i went to see it. The tone of slavery in that movie was the strange part, it looked bad to those who were trying to escape, everyone else looked like they were doing just fine.

And Django wasn't the hero of that movie Schultz was.

But why aren't people concerned about "the tone of Nazism" in Inglorious Basterds? I get the complaint but I'm pointing out this is Tarantino's MO where concern only seems to be important here because it strikes a nerve. Do you believe a viewer in Germany is going to struggle with this in either movie?

#55 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@EXTomar said:

I am confused by the sentiment "We have to handle X with respect" and then not want to talk about it. I don't think Django was made to make anyone feel guilty but like Inglorious Bastards it is a revenge story using real world "evil" as the enemy and I don't see anything wrong with that in IB so why can't Django use it as well?

Don't believe the point to Django is to make anyone feel guilty about slavery but instead to create a situation where you can revel in Django The Hero getting revenge.

I never said Django couldn't use it. That's actually why i went to see it. The tone of slavery in that movie was the strange part, it looked bad to those who were trying to escape, everyone else looked like they were doing just fine.

And Django wasn't the hero of that movie Schultz was.

But why aren't people concerned about "the tone of Nazism" in Inglorious Basterds? I get the complaint but I'm pointing out this is Tarantino's MO where concern only seems to be important here because it strikes a nerve. Do you believe a viewer in Germany is going to struggle with this in either movie?

I've never seen Inglorious Bastards. I can't talk to the tone of Nazism. Did they show concentration camps in it?

#56 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@TheVeteran13: Thank you good sir.

#57 Posted by Roger778 (953 posts) -

I want to see it, mainly because of Leonardo DiCaprio, Jamie Foxx, and Samuel L. Jackson all being in a movie together. That sounds just awesome.

#58 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@Roger778:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDYblwe96-o

watch that instead

#59 Posted by Getz (2986 posts) -

Yeah, Django was fucking awesome sooo... I guess go watch The Color Purple or something?

#60 Posted by cosi83 (391 posts) -

op, haha that was great. yes Blazing Saddles is fantastic. i have little interest in Django. Red Hook Summer on the other hand...

#61 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@Getz said:

Yeah, Django was fucking awesome sooo... I guess go watch The Color Purple or something?

why would you see color purple?

#62 Edited by TruthTellah (8370 posts) -

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@TruthTellah said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@Rohok said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

*SPOILERS WELCOME*

lots of violence. disjointed plot. Over indulgent dialogue. Ran an hour too long. And I couldn't tell if D'jango was just written poorly or if Jamie Foxx was just playing a terrible slave...

If you want to see a western movie that stars a great black lead character that is strong, smart, likable, looks racism and hate in the face without flinching, a movie with a great plot, great soundtrack, fantastic supporting cast, interesting love story, and if you're not offended with the use of the word nigger....Go see Blazing Saddles. I think its on netflix. There, I just saved you 14 bucks.

or not...*shrug* what can i say.

Or you could just enjoy a good movie and not act like a pretentious prick.

It kinda makes me proud that suggesting that people see Blazing Saddles instead makes me pretentious. so thank you i guess :)

While I agree that there is little pretentious about the movie classic Blazing Saddles, I think they were referring to your pretentious prick tone ripping a movie they may or may not have enjoyed.

Ah ok. So having a differing opinion makes me a pretentious prick. Well, thats cool too.

Nah. I think the problem was with how you expressed that differing opinion, not by having one. So, saying something is basically bullshit and mocking it with a comparison to an old comedy is different from simply expressing that you didn't enjoy or think highly of a movie. For someone who enjoyed the film(or just thinks thoroughly crapping on every element of a movie is pretentious), I could see how they would just see your comments as attacks, not reasonable critique. If your intent wasn't to come off as a pretentious prick putting down a recent movie, it probably could have been said better so as to avoid any misunderstanding.

Online
#63 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
#64 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4307 posts) -
@Brendan said:

I freaking loved it.

#65 Posted by Roger778 (953 posts) -

No, thank you.

#66 Posted by Getz (2986 posts) -

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@Getz said:

Yeah, Django was fucking awesome sooo... I guess go watch The Color Purple or something?

why would you see color purple?

You seem to take issue with the way slavery was portrayed, why are you going to a Quentin Tarantino movie? Go watch Beloved or The Color Purple if you want some kind of dour drama about american slaves.

#67 Posted by AlexW00d (6167 posts) -

Guy has opinion, people berate him for it, such is the Giant Bomb forums :(

Also you guys complaining about $14 for a ticket, last time I went to the cinema it cost the equivalent of $23, and is the reason the last time I went to the cinema was about a year ago.

#68 Posted by vech24 (20 posts) -

I've noticed a trend on my relatively short stay at the GB forums that people just like to fuck with each other around here. Can't say that I enjoy that too much personally but hey...I come here for the GB cast content anyway.

#69 Posted by spykereightsix (78 posts) -

@Tharrington: $7.25?! I live in LA (where they make movies, for Chrissake!) and it's usually around $12-16 depending on the theater. I feel like they should handing out DVD copies when we exit...

#70 Posted by medacris (634 posts) -

I liked Django a lot, but I can also totally understand why other people WOULDN'T like it. Thought the acting was great, costuming was slick, music was very fitting. I quite every one of his films that I've seen, though.

I don't think Tarentino is pretentious. Pretentious stuff to me is incomprehensible because the viewer "isn't smart enough to get it", according to the creator. Tarentino's messages are more overt.

#71 Posted by Intro (1205 posts) -

Great movie, one of my favorites.

I work at a theater. If it was shorter, everyone would bitch their ass off that they don't get their money's worth. However, the Hobbit and Django are too long for anyone. So what the fuck.

#72 Posted by sickVisionz (1268 posts) -

I thought it was great. Tarantino's best since Jackie Brown. Not really understanding the "lighthearted American slavery" line... unless you're a sicko and stuff like getting whipped for dropping something in the kitchen or getting torn apart by rabid dogs for not wanting to be killed is "lighthearted" to you.

#73 Posted by Hailinel (23658 posts) -

@medacris said:

I liked Django a lot, but I can also totally understand why other people WOULDN'T like it. Thought the acting was great, costuming was slick, music was very fitting. I quite every one of his films that I've seen, though.

I don't think Tarentino is pretentious. Pretentious stuff to me is incomprehensible because the viewer "isn't smart enough to get it", according to the creator. Tarentino's messages are more overt.

Pretentiousness doesn't mean that a creator thinks people aren't smart enough to understand it; it's a sense of unearned self-importance.

And if there's anything about Tarantino and his films that strike me as pretentious at all, it's his character dialogue, which is often hilariously unrealistic and indulgent. It's also a major reason why his half of Grindhouse is often considered the lesser half.

Online
#74 Posted by YoThatLimp (1876 posts) -

@TheGoatMan1 said:

@YoThatLimp: The point of that exchange was to further illustrate that "stephen" is an ass kisser, and a "house slave" who has more loyalty to his cruel master than to the fellow human beings that said master is brutalizing. I would not label it as "great dialog" either, but why you chose to highlight that one instance, and not any of King shultz great dialog is interesting.

I understand that he was writing Stephen as an "Uncle Tom", but it showcases how bad some of the dialogue really is at spots (even though Schultz really carries the movie), like Scary Movie bad. It is just not as good as I expected coming from someone who wrote Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. Obviously IMO, YMMV, etc, etc

#75 Posted by EarlessShrimp (1631 posts) -

I have a vague opinion of the movie.

#76 Posted by Ghost_Cat (1374 posts) -

It's got Tarantino dialog, Samuel Jackson was full-on Sammy, and everyone exploded like red jello. So I liked it.

#77 Posted by TheGoatMan1 (30 posts) -

@YoThatLimp said:

@TheGoatMan1 said:

@YoThatLimp: The point of that exchange was to further illustrate that "stephen" is an ass kisser, and a "house slave" who has more loyalty to his cruel master than to the fellow human beings that said master is brutalizing. I would not label it as "great dialog" either, but why you chose to highlight that one instance, and not any of King shultz great dialog is interesting.

I understand that he was writing Stephen as an "Uncle Tom", but it showcases how bad some of the dialogue really is at spots (even though Schultz really carries the movie), like Scary Movie bad. It is just not as good as I expected coming from someone who wrote Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. Obviously IMO, YMMV, etc, etc

Obviously these are all personal opinions, "viva la difference" and all that. If someone writes a bad joke for a character intentionally, as something that character might say, that does not mean the writer makes bad jokes, that means the character is bad at making jokes. The joke was supposed to be really stupid, as a device to make you dislike the character of Stephen even further. King Shcultz ,Django, and Candie's dialogue all seemed really good to me. Even the majority of Stephen's dialogue-that one line aside-seemed good.

#78 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@Getz said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@Getz said:

Yeah, Django was fucking awesome sooo... I guess go watch The Color Purple or something?

why would you see color purple?

You seem to take issue with the way slavery was portrayed, why are you going to a Quentin Tarantino movie? Go watch Beloved or The Color Purple if you want some kind of dour drama about american slaves.

you do realize that the Color Purple was set in the 1900s right??

#79 Posted by evanbower (1210 posts) -

@BelligerentEngine said:

White people saying a black man is bad at portraying black people?

Yeah, a guy with the username sounds totally white bread.

#80 Posted by evanbower (1210 posts) -

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@Getz said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@Getz said:

Yeah, Django was fucking awesome sooo... I guess go watch The Color Purple or something?

why would you see color purple?

You seem to take issue with the way slavery was portrayed, why are you going to a Quentin Tarantino movie? Go watch Beloved or The Color Purple if you want some kind of dour drama about american slaves.

you do realize that the Color Purple was set in the 1900s right??

Sir, please watch season 3 of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air if you want a sympathetic retelling of America's slave trade!

#81 Posted by x0mb13 (32 posts) -

I thought the movie was awesome, and the dialogue was fucking awesome. Way better than The Hobbit or as it should be called, an unexpected drawn out series of chase sequences.

#82 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@evanbower said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@Getz said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@Getz said:

Yeah, Django was fucking awesome sooo... I guess go watch The Color Purple or something?

why would you see color purple?

You seem to take issue with the way slavery was portrayed, why are you going to a Quentin Tarantino movie? Go watch Beloved or The Color Purple if you want some kind of dour drama about american slaves.

you do realize that the Color Purple was set in the 1900s right??

Sir, please watch season 3 of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air if you want a sympathetic retelling of America's slave trade!

Exactly. I need more seriousness about my slavery. Going to go watch good times.

#83 Posted by MstrMnyBgs (123 posts) -

Such a great movie. Especially that scene with the James Brown/Tupac song playing.

#84 Posted by chocolaterhinovampire (1287 posts) -

That film was fantastic

#85 Posted by Shimmy (182 posts) -

@zombie2011 said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

If you want to see a western movie that stars a great black lead character that is strong, smart, likable, looks racism and hate in the face without flinching, a movie with a great plot, great soundtrack, fantastic supporting cast, interesting love story....Go see Wild Wild West. I think its on netflix. There, I just saved you 14 bucks.

Spike Lee, is that you?

Quoted for truth.

#86 Posted by FourWude (2261 posts) -

@Shimmy said:

@zombie2011 said:

@TheQuotedNegro said:

If you want to see a western movie that stars a great black lead character that is strong, smart, likable, looks racism and hate in the face without flinching, a movie with a great plot, great soundtrack, fantastic supporting cast, interesting love story....Go see Wild Wild West. I think its on netflix. There, I just saved you 14 bucks.

Spike Lee, is that you?

Quoted for truth.

Whitey Motherfucker. Is that you?

#87 Posted by BigBoss1911 (2408 posts) -

For those who have seen it, how does it rank with Quentins other movies?

#88 Edited by MarkWahlberg (4580 posts) -

@BigBoss1911 said:

For those who have seen it, how does it rank with Quentins other movies?

That depends on how much you're on Quentin's nutsack. If you're a normal person, it's the point where his gradual decline into self-indulgent, boring violence-porn outweighs any remaining shred of talent. If you're like everyone else, it's the latest masterpiece from a man who shits gold and whose very boogers are the stuff dreams are made of.

Basically, we've reached the 'emperor's new clothes' point in the career of Quentin Tarantino, and this film is his birthday suit. More specifically in regard to your question: You should probably just stick with watching Pulp Fiction again.

#89 Posted by Skytylz (4023 posts) -

@MarkWahlberg said:

@BigBoss1911 said:

For those who have seen it, how does it rank with Quentins other movies?

That depends on how much you're on Quentin's nutsack. If you're a normal person, it's the point where his gradual decline into self-indulgent, boring violence-porn outweighs any remaining shred of talent. If you're like everyone else, it's the latest masterpiece from a man who shits gold and whose very boogers are the stuff dreams are made of.

Basically, we've reached the 'emperor's new clothes' point in the career of Quentin Tarantino, and this film is his birthday suit. More specifically in regard to your question: You should probably just stick with watching Pulp Fiction again.

So you didn't like it?

I thought it was fine, one of the easier to watch Tarantino movies if you know what I mean. Also, I'd say it's in the middle of the pack for Tarantino movies, better than a few for me, but it always seems like everyone ranks his movies differently.

#90 Posted by DaMaJaDiZ (59 posts) -

Not trying to be that guy, but this sentence; " And I couldn't tell if D'jango was just written poorly or if Jamie Foxx was just playing a terrible slave" is kind of funny when you put it in context of "good slave, terrible slave". That kind of tickled me.

#91 Posted by SecondPersonShooter (615 posts) -

@MarkWahlberg said:

@BigBoss1911 said:

For those who have seen it, how does it rank with Quentins other movies?

That depends on how much you're on Quentin's nutsack. If you're a normal person, it's the point where his gradual decline into self-indulgent, boring violence-porn outweighs any remaining shred of talent. If you're like everyone else, it's the latest masterpiece from a man who shits gold and whose very boogers are the stuff dreams are made of.

Basically, we've reached the 'emperor's new clothes' point in the career of Quentin Tarantino, and this film is his birthday suit. More specifically in regard to your question: You should probably just stick with watching Pulp Fiction again.

This movie is far, far less self-indulgent than Inglourious Basterds or Kill Bill.

#92 Posted by laserbolts (5309 posts) -

@darkvare said:

@Ducksworth: wow now i get why my friends in the us complain about the prices

same in canada too. I pay 14 to watch a movie and the theatre is old and shitty.

#93 Posted by FLYmeatwad (154 posts) -

1. Jackie Brown

2. Django

3. Basterds

4. Death Proof

5. Kill Bill 1 + 2

6. Pulp Fiction

7. Reservoir Dogs

Either way, the way that violence is used in Django creates a tense dichotomy that forces the audience to confront atrocity (if you're telling me there's anything "light hearted" about the way the Broomhilda in the hotbox scene if filmed or presented, you may need to seek professional help) and balance it with our desire to see stylized violence. Much like with IB, we're meant to identify the contradictions and reflect upon on them. There's something similar to the way someone like Haneke operates in the way Tarantino approaches it. Though, obviously, he's probing at different things than Haneke as well.

I don't think that Tarantino is attempting to solve the problem of racism in America, but rather highlight how deeply ingrained and institutionalized it has become. There's serious confusion and tragedy, an awareness of self perpetuation, ingrained in both the SLJ and DiCaprio characters that feels near inescapable. This self delusion is crucial to the film's themes. It's used in a meta context as well, there's a whole scene where Django and King talk about being actors and not breaking character, though it also works on a surface level in relation to characters we will shortly meet. But yeah, it's balanced with humor here and there. Is it kind of funny that the guy helping Django along is named Dr. King? Yeah. Did I laugh when he kept introducing his horse and it would gruff and bow? Of course. Is the way the camera zooms in on DiCaprio holding that huge coconut glass also work as kind of comedic? Yep. But I don't think it ever undermines the seriousness or weight of both slavery and the commentary provided on racism is manifested in the film.

I think I wrote over in Alex's Top 10 thread that there's this feeling, critically speaking, that Django isn't 'about' anything, but that seems to be completely off base because there's a ton going on beneath the surface. It's similar, I think, to the way Foxx's performance has been discussed and overlooked. I've heard it argued that he gives the best performance in the entire film, channeling the stone-faced Clint Eastwood~esque characters of the spaghetti western (and despite some notable elements of blaxpoloitation movies, this is very much more in line with the spaghetti western as I understand it) while still creating this heartbreak and longing in those scenes where he shows his cracks (namely where he's seeing Broomhilda in the lake/fields/where ever). To make that engaging and human is tough, and in that sense Foxx nails it. Not sure I would call it the film's best performance, it's hard not to get on board with Waltz or DiCaprio, but what Foxx does has been underrated I feel, just as the film itself seems to be dismissed as a 'lesser' work because it doesn't have these iconic scenes like a Pulp Fiction, RD or IB.

It's also important to not forget that Tarantino, despite presenting brutalization (in both a literal, but also metaphoric way), is creating a fantasy. As I said earlier, the meta aspects that keep reminding us of filmmaking along with homages to other movies sets the tone, but it's also underscored by the way soundtrack is brilliantly deployed. It directly connects the past to the present and makes us as viewers think about how these systems are still in place.

Django is a Hell of a film.

#94 Posted by BoG (5180 posts) -
"If you want to see a western movie that stars a great black lead character that is strong, smart, likable, looks racism and hate in the face without flinching."

I don't think that this was the point. The point was that Django was a liberated slave, ad he carried along with him all the emotional baggage that comes with that. He's not supposed to be smart, he was a slave. As for the others items, I think you're wrong. I liked him as a character and thought that he was a strong man. He was trying to read, and he was strong when he needed to control himself. At the end of the movie, he does look racism and hate in the face without flinching. This is how I interpreted the final scene, where he kills Sam Jackson's character.

The magic of Django is that Tarantino successfully created a lighthearted slavery movie. He doesn't make light of the most horrible aspects of slavery, he portrays them as terrible. There is a delicate balance of horror and humor, and Tarantino nails it. Even the violent scenes all have a different flavor. When the enslaved man is torn apart by dogs, we're disgusted as an audience. When Django opens up a can of whoopass (a scene far more violent than the dog one) we cheer for him. Tarantino crafted each scene to have a distinct emotional impact and, again, he pulled it off.

@FLYmeatwad: I just want to endorse everything this user just said.

#95 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5795 posts) -

I thought the movie was great overall except for the fight scene and the scene with the dogs.

Most of the violence up to that point had been ridiculous and over the top, but those two scenes just felt like they didn't... fit for some reason.

That was kind of disappointing, especially since I really liked the first half of the movie.

#96 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4328 posts) -

@FLYmeatwad said:

1. Jackie Brown

2. Django

3. Basterds

4. Death Proof

5. Kill Bill 1 + 2

6. Pulp Fiction

7. Reservoir Dogs

Either way, the way that violence is used in Django creates a tense dichotomy that forces the audience to confront atrocity (if you're telling me there's anything "light hearted" about the way the Broomhilda in the hotbox scene if filmed or presented, you may need to seek professional help) and balance it with our desire to see stylized violence. Much like with IB, we're meant to identify the contradictions and reflect upon on them. There's something similar to the way someone like Haneke operates in the way Tarantino approaches it. Though, obviously, he's probing at different things than Haneke as well.

I don't think that Tarantino is attempting to solve the problem of racism in America, but rather highlight how deeply ingrained and institutionalized it has become. There's serious confusion and tragedy, an awareness of self perpetuation, ingrained in both the SLJ and DiCaprio characters that feels near inescapable. This self delusion is crucial to the film's themes. It's used in a meta context as well, there's a whole scene where Django and King talk about being actors and not breaking character, though it also works on a surface level in relation to characters we will shortly meet. But yeah, it's balanced with humor here and there. Is it kind of funny that the guy helping Django along is named Dr. King? Yeah. Did I laugh when he kept introducing his horse and it would gruff and bow? Of course. Is the way the camera zooms in on DiCaprio holding that huge coconut glass also work as kind of comedic? Yep. But I don't think it ever undermines the seriousness or weight of both slavery and the commentary provided on racism is manifested in the film.

I think I wrote over in Alex's Top 10 thread that there's this feeling, critically speaking, that Django isn't 'about' anything, but that seems to be completely off base because there's a ton going on beneath the surface. It's similar, I think, to the way Foxx's performance has been discussed and overlooked. I've heard it argued that he gives the best performance in the entire film, channeling the stone-faced Clint Eastwood~esque characters of the spaghetti western (and despite some notable elements of blaxpoloitation movies, this is very much more in line with the spaghetti western as I understand it) while still creating this heartbreak and longing in those scenes where he shows his cracks (namely where he's seeing Broomhilda in the lake/fields/where ever). To make that engaging and human is tough, and in that sense Foxx nails it. Not sure I would call it the film's best performance, it's hard not to get on board with Waltz or DiCaprio, but what Foxx does has been underrated I feel, just as the film itself seems to be dismissed as a 'lesser' work because it doesn't have these iconic scenes like a Pulp Fiction, RD or IB.

It's also important to not forget that Tarantino, despite presenting brutalization (in both a literal, but also metaphoric way), is creating a fantasy. As I said earlier, the meta aspects that keep reminding us of filmmaking along with homages to other movies sets the tone, but it's also underscored by the way soundtrack is brilliantly deployed. It directly connects the past to the present and makes us as viewers think about how these systems are still in place.

Django is a Hell of a film.

Damn, well said. That pretty much sums up my feelings on the film too but my listed of favorite Tarantino movies is in a different order.

1) Jackie Brown

2) Pulp Fiction

3) Django

4) Basterds

5) Reservoir Dogs

6) Kill Bill 1+2

Didn't see Death Proof.

#97 Posted by zombie2011 (4968 posts) -

I felt the movie dragged in a lot of places, but overall the movie was amazing! Some very disturbing scenes, but also some hilarious scenes too.

Jacksons character was so gooddamn funny, surprised he didn't get any award noms for his role. Also Don Johnson as Big Daddy was great, the clan scenes got the biggest laughs in the cinema I was at.

#98 Posted by CaLe (3895 posts) -

Tarantino wanted to make an entertaining movie. If you want an accurate portrayal of real slavery you came to the wrong place.

I found it exceedingly entertaining. I'd even go as far as to say it was one of the most enjoyable movies I've ever seen.

#99 Posted by CharlesAlanRatliff (5369 posts) -

Christoph Waltz. Man, that dude is an amazing actor.

#100 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5029 posts) -

This is just a summation of these guys' thoughts. They go deeper into it in the audio review and there was even a podcast about why Korey felt like this film handled racism and slavery quite poorly.