• 130 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by csl316 (7333 posts) -
@takeshikitano3

Oh I loved the movie. I'm a fan of Tarantino, and of westerns, and the two mixed quite well for me. He is horrible as an actor and I'm not a fan of his cameos, but at least his cameo ends rather explosively.

Same thoughts here. It redeemed that whole ego trip scene.
#102 Posted by Trainer_Red (314 posts) -

@x0mb13 said:

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.

haha Gandalf screamed RUN!!! like three times in the movie.

#103 Posted by Trainer_Red (314 posts) -

Tarantino is a very complex guy. I either FULLY hate or love his stuff. I haven't seen Django yet, but I have a feeling I will ultimately hate it based on what I know, but anything is possible.

#104 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@BoG 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."

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.

I disagree with everything you said sir. You not only gave D'jango as a character too much credit, but you gave D'jango as a movie too much credit. To D'jango, Sam Jackson's character didnt represent racism, he represented a snitch that blew his plan to shit. There were plenty of scenes in that movie where D'jango wass fine with racism. Didn't bother him one bit. The slave fighting, the beating of the woman for dropping eggs, the dogs ripping that man to pieces. Now, some would argue that he had to do this to save his wife. but D'jango never once hinted that he cared about anything BUT saving his wife. He had absolutely NO character arch. No redeemable qualities. And at the end, it felt like he didn't deserve to get his woman back because all he did was to be along for the ride.

You think Tarantino did a "magical" job at making a lighthearted slavery movie? He didn't. He did a good job of dancing around slavery because he didnt want to focus on it. Which again, is whatever, I don't like sad slavery movies. I've seen enough of them. But you cannot give me a scene where a woman is getting whipped for dropping eggs and show a long shot of slaves in a swing by the "big house" or slaves having tea or a fat slave woman with lipstick on. We can all agree on the fact that that's a little inconsistent right? Right? Now if you deliberately do shots like that what are you saying? Slavery wasn't that bad? When you show a scene of pre-hood Klan members in a damn near Monty Python sketch to keep it light. What are you doing to your viewers perception of who slave owners, segregationists, and all around terrible people were? You're distorting it.

When a terrible slave owner lets a man get torn apart by dogs, we're all disgusted as an audience. When the man the movie is named after doesn't even get to kill that man, or even cares to kill that man but kills a house full of nameless white guys and extras...I don't care. I've seen blood and violence in movies. When Shultz shot Leo in the flower. THAT was tension. THAT was two fleshed out characters having a moment. THAT was the movie.

And I'm sorry if I come off as an angry black guy to some of you. But I'm not even approaching this from a race angle. This is purely a storytelling angle. That movie, was a big Blah.

#105 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@DaMaJaDiZ said:

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.

it is quite a strange statement i know....

#106 Posted by advocatefish (355 posts) -

The theatre erupted in a standing ovation when the credits rolled including myself. Sorry duder but your on your own. It almost had two ovations because the shot lingered on the "first ending" for so long people started clapping.

Also Blazing Saddles fucking sucks.

#107 Posted by regularassmilk (1369 posts) -

It's weird to me that even though this movie and Inglorious Basterds were fucking off the walls and ridiculous, people are calling them the inaugural films of his mature period.

In any case, I loved Basterds for what it was (And indeed what it wasn't) and I'm expecting to feel the same way about Django. Meaning, a lot of Tarantino, but toned back a little bit, and not a fucking montage of movies I've seen and heard of before already.

#108 Posted by Clonedzero (3714 posts) -

i thought it was great.

i dont even get how it was offensive. slaves were treated like shit, the movie shows slaves being treated like shit. thats sorta how it happened people.

#109 Posted by Phyrlord (171 posts) -

@darkvare said:

who pays 14 bucks to go to the movies

it's $21 here if you want VIP 3D. 11.50 regular. anything less your looking at non digital theaters.

#110 Posted by BoG (5178 posts) -

@TheQuotedNegro: First, why do you keep typing D'jango? It's Django.

Django was never ok with racism. He never explicitly says "I HATE THIS." You see it in his face when he sees slaves being mistreated. You see it when his first reaction is to shoot and then whip the first of the Brittle brothers. We see how Django perceives racism when he acts as a black slaver. He doesn't want to, he says that black slavers are the lowest of the low. It pains him to play the part at times. You're right, though, his ultimate goal was not to change the world, it was simply to save his wife. His character arc was not overcoming racism. It was learning to control himself. On his first bounty, he simply shoots and kills. When he is in Candie's home, he restrains himself. In the end, it was the composed Dr. King who can't stay his hand. I think we agree that this was probably the most powerful scene in the entire movie.

I stand by what I said about the killing of Sam Jackson. I think it was a liberating scene. I'll defend it further when I have a chance to watch the movie again, and understand it more fully.

I don't think Tarantino was trying to portray slavery in a positive way when he shows a slave girl on a swing. I think that he was trying to portray the era the way it was. The fact that some slaves were treated differently just further illustrates how unjust, and unjustified, the practice of slavery was. There are still present in the film completely different scenes. The hot box, the wrestling, the dog attacks, all of which don't dance around the horrors of slavery. You're right, though. Slavery isn't the primary focus of the film. The film isn't about slavery, it's simply set in the era of American Slavery.

As for distorting the image of the racists, I think you're wrong. I think that Tarantino is trying to portray them as human beings. They're still villains, but not the "evil to the core and terribly efficient" villains we're used to seeing in movies. He made the klansmen just as human, and just as stupid, as anyone else in the entire film.

I've already stated why I think that Tarantino did a good job. He made us feel horrible when the man is torn apart, and excited when Django killed everyone. I do, however, understand why you don't like the scene. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for Django to kill Candie.

Moderator
#111 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@advocatefish said:

The theatre erupted in a standing ovation when the credits rolled including myself. Sorry duder but your on your own. It almost had two ovations because the shot lingered on the "first ending" for so long people started clapping.

Also Blazing Saddles fucking sucks.

whoa.

#112 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@BoG said:

@TheQuotedNegro: First, why do you keep typing D'jango? It's Django.

Django was never ok with racism. He never explicitly says "I HATE THIS." You see it in his face when he sees slaves being mistreated. You see it when his first reaction is to shoot and then whip the first of the Brittle brothers. We see how Django perceives racism when he acts as a black slaver. He doesn't want to, he says that black slavers are the lowest of the low. It pains him to play the part at times. You're right, though, his ultimate goal was not to change the world, it was simply to save his wife. His character arc was not overcoming racism. It was learning to control himself. On his first bounty, he simply shoots and kills. When he is in Candie's home, he restrains himself. In the end, it was the composed Dr. King who can't stay his hand. I think we agree that this was probably the most powerful scene in the entire movie.

I stand by what I said about the killing of Sam Jackson. I think it was a liberating scene. I'll defend it further when I have a chance to watch the movie again, and understand it more fully.

I don't think Tarantino was trying to portray slavery in a positive way when he shows a slave girl on a swing. I think that he was trying to portray the era the way it was. The fact that some slaves were treated differently just further illustrates how unjust, and unjustified, the practice of slavery was. There are still present in the film completely different scenes. The hot box, the wrestling, the dog attacks, all of which don't dance around the horrors of slavery. You're right, though. Slavery isn't the primary focus of the film. The film isn't about slavery, it's simply set in the era of American Slavery.

As for distorting the image of the racists, I think you're wrong. I think that Tarantino is trying to portray them as human beings. They're still villains, but not the "evil to the core and terribly efficient" villains we're used to seeing in movies. He made the klansmen just as human, and just as stupid, as anyone else in the entire film.

I've already stated why I think that Tarantino did a good job. He made us feel horrible when the man is torn apart, and excited when Django killed everyone. I do, however, understand why you don't like the scene. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for Django to kill Candie.

Again, I don't know if it was the role of D'jango or Jamie Foxx's acting. One of the two would not let that character have a human connection. I don't think he had a character arc. I never felt that learning to control himself was a big problem. The first 3 guys, sure. He had a personal history with them. The rest of the people in that movie, meant nothing really to him. And in the end he kills no one really of any substance. That movie felt like he didnt really do anything worth caring about.

But I'm tired of this movie. I respect your opinion BoG. You're actually talking about it like a movie instead of rage yelling or telling me to watch Color Purple. So I thank you for that. I appreciate good discussions.

#113 Posted by Hailinel (22668 posts) -

@advocatefish said:

Also Blazing Saddles fucking sucks.

Then you have horrible taste.

Online
#114 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4279 posts) -

Django Unchained was pretty tight. My only complaint is that they had a giant climactic gun battle to end the second act, and the ending itself is kinda meh as a result.

Still, Tupac spittin' game while Jamie Foxx blows the fuck out of some hillbillies was preeeeeeeeeetty great.

#115 Posted by MstrMnyBgs (123 posts) -

I am so glad that I can enjoy movies for being movies. I appreciate and understand people who are critics and can nitpick a movie, but to me I just go for enjoyment. If it was a bad movie oh well, if it was good then great.

#116 Posted by BoG (5178 posts) -

@TheQuotedNegro: Fair enough. From our brief discussion, my conclusion is that we simply have different opinions. I don't think anything you said is wrong, it's simply your interpretation, and I respect that. The same goes for what I said, it's my interpretation.

NOW GTFO AND WATHC THE COLOR PURPLE ;)

Moderator
#117 Edited by OfficeGamer (1087 posts) -

I'm not a film buff or anything, but as a regular movie goer I simply loved this movie.

First of all, I proudly say that my Tarantino bias played a big role in me enjoying this. It's a god damned Tarantino flick from start to finish. I enjoyed every moment, I had several laughs, and most of alll...

I fucking cried. That shit never happens to me. When Django fetched that whip and whipped the motherfucker who whipped his wife, I just lost it. This movie for the first time in my life made me realize just how fucking BAAAAAAAAD white Americans oppressed their slaves. I knew that they killed and lynched and tortured, but dude, something about how it was depicted in this movie made me feel it's far more horrible than the Crusade torturing.

WHIP THAT INHUMANE MOTHER FFFFFUUUCCCCKKKEERRRRRRRRRR
#118 Posted by FLYmeatwad (154 posts) -

@Phyrlord: Wait, you still have non-digital theaters. And it's actually cheaper to go to them? Where do you live so I can live there?

#119 Posted by TheQuotedNegro (36 posts) -

@OfficeGamer: how old are you OfficeGamer if you dont mind me asking.

#120 Posted by huntad (1930 posts) -

@darkvare said:

who pays 14 bucks to go to the movies

#121 Posted by OfficeGamer (1087 posts) -

@TheQuotedNegro said:

@OfficeGamer: how old are you OfficeGamer if you dont mind me asking.

22. How is that relevant?

#122 Edited by cosi83 (390 posts) -

Yup, so that was horrific. I felt the first half was great, with the beginning being the highlight. The brutality seen in the later stages especially, overshadowed the entertainment factor. I thought the soundtrack was off point, and the final 25, clearly a mistake. Oh and when I see Bruce Dern, it makes me think back to Silent Running, the original plant talker. Kill Bill 3, do we really need it?

#123 Posted by Demoskinos (13821 posts) -

Just got back from seeing it and it was amazing. Everything was on point. Dicaprio was fucking amazing.

#124 Posted by Mr_Misery (243 posts) -

After Inglorious Basterds erased the holocaust and made WWII seem like a good time I had no interest in seeing Djano Unchained.

#125 Edited by TheHT (10243 posts) -

It was great! I really disliked the music choices. Would've much rather had more straight Ennio Morricone sounding stuff and the occasional anachronistic tune.

#126 Posted by Claude (16251 posts) -

Great movie, film or what the fuck ever. I felt it to my knees it was so good. I gave it a full other motherfucker.

#127 Edited by Fattony12000 (6350 posts) -

Damn fine movie film.

Yes, there's a slightly spotty narrative arc that the movie takes with regards to some of the choices that are made by characters when it comes to the 'buying Broomhilda part', the music was all great except for the use of rap. The vocals, in particular, distracted from the scenes where it was used, and there was a pretty bad cut made using a rap track that felt like it was building and building (during the big bloody gunfight in the big house, where Django knocks the shelves over for cover) towards a few more minutes of action instead of just ending.

Broomhilda was underwritten, but Schultz more than made up for any shortcomings in that department, he was pretty incredible (except for his moment of stupidity, which kind of had to happen in order to allow for the second ending arc to occur, I just wish that whole thing went down in a different way).

I applaud Tarantino for releasing a film in 2013 that uses big gushing squibs, fucked up language and violence, and for making a film on film.

#128 Posted by Claude (16251 posts) -

Here's a short review of the film I wrote.
 
Saw Django: Unchained last night. This new film by Quentin Tarantino is something only he could get away with or even attempt in this day and age. Set two years before the Civil War in the South, it follows the tale of a former slave Django "Jamie Foxx" and dentist turned bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz "Christoph Waltz. The character Django grows the most during the film and Jamie Foxx delivers th e goods, but Dr. King Schultz steals the show with Christoph Waltz's mesmerizing performance. Leonardo DiCaprio is quite good too in a supporting role as the villainous plantation owner Calvin Candie.

You know to expect the unexpected if you've ever seen a Quentin Tarantino film, and the tone of this film changes about two thirds of the way through. Stay away if a certain racial epitaph bothers you and makes you feel uneasy as the "N" word is used without any reservations. Slavery is a big part of the film and the dehumanizing of the enslaved can be tearfully off-putting. If that doesn't get you, the violence and buckets of blood spilled certainly will. I really enjoyed this film as it's funny, violent and thought provoking while be wildly entertaining. The audience that attended the viewing with me actually clapped at the end. That's pretty cool for a movie on a Wednesday night.

#129 Posted by President_Barackbar (3344 posts) -

I don't understand how anyone can look at Django Unchained and say that it glorifies or makes light of slavery. In one scene, a slave is literally torn apart by dogs at the command of the main villain. It isn't played for laughs, the camera doesn't cut away from the violence, it just happens. Anyone who can look at that and honestly say it makes light of slavery is seriously confused.

#130 Posted by MariachiMacabre (6935 posts) -
@President_Barackbar

I don't understand how anyone can look at Django Unchained and say that it glorifies or makes light of slavery. In one scene, a slave is literally torn apart by dogs at the command of the main villain. It isn't played for laughs, the camera doesn't cut away from the violence, it just happens. Anyone who can look at that and honestly say it makes light of slavery is seriously confused.

Yep. It was pretty fucked. Made me sick to my stomach and very effectively proves what a monster Candie is.