Printable View
It almost made me sick. Its cornball joke after cornball joke with over the top performances. A linear boring 2:40 hrs long story line.
This is a prime example of when good acting goes to waste.
This is a decent movie on its own, dont get me wrong. But when comparing with Tarantinos previous works it almost looks like he was more interested in making a western than making a good movie....
"the D is silent" weak ass movie phrase too :facepalm :facepalm, stop forcing the issue quentin...
It's a typical Tarantino, not significantly worse or better than any of his movies. You may just be getting tired of Tarantino's very limited range.
I thought it was great. But I didn't think Waltz' performance was Oscar worthy by any means. DiCaprio stole every scene. I thought Foxx was perfect for the part also.
If he wanted to go through known territory (Western) he should have went Jackie Brown style. A lot more credible roles and more inetresting characters without being over the top. If the dude wanted to make a comedy the premise should have been a better fit a la inglorious basterds.
As poster above said he mght have gone beyond his "range" with this one.
Also Dicaprio and Samuel L Jackson are the best performances. Foxx is awful and Waltz is corny, over the top, etc etc etc
[QUOTE=Mr. Jabbar]If he wanted to go through known territory (Western) he should have went Jackie Brown style. A lot more credible roles and more inetresting characters without being over the top. If the dude wanted to make a comedy the premise should have been a better fit a la inglorious basterds.
As poster above said he mght have gone beyond his "range" with this one.
Also Dicaprio and Samuel L Jackson are the best performances. Foxx is awful and Waltz is corny, over the top, etc etc etc[/QUOTE]
Yea, I don't really get the Waltz hype. And agreed about Jackson, he was great in this movie. I thought Foxx did a great job. There are better actors out there, but not a lot of them are raw like Foxx.
[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]Yea, I don't really get the Waltz hype. And agreed about Jackson, he was great in this movie. I thought Foxx did a great job. There are better actors out there, but not a lot of them are raw like Foxx.[/QUOTE]
The thing about Foxx, the dude looks always too "cool", "in control", with something smart to say, and is the "ultimate well trained assasin". We already had Waltz for that not to mention he impersonates a black slave and it doesn't fits his role in the slightest, dude should have been alot more down to earth with his extravaganza emerging from other places...
The Waltz hype comes from the average movie watcher who can also find great joy in any other overplayed character for the sakes of it being overplayed.
Much better than Basterds.
[QUOTE=D-Wade316]Much better than Basterds.[/QUOTE]
basterds is weak overall imo but has some great memorable scenes (first one at the farm, and the one in the basement bar). Django leaves a scent of cheapness and unmemorableness in the air...
BTW: Landa >>>>>> Dr. Schultz
Welcome to every Tarantino movie ever. You either love his style or can't stand it.
[QUOTE=Dbrog]Welcome to every Tarantino movie ever. You either love his style or can't stand it.[/QUOTE]
I've liked almost every one of his films until this crap
[QUOTE=Dbrog]Welcome to every Tarantino movie ever. You either love his style or can't stand it.[/QUOTE]
I would say with Pulp Fiction he elevated the material to a level of great depth and originality and rose above the slick homages and dialogue that characterize the rest of his movies. but yea I wasn't particularly fond of Django although I did think Leo did a good job.
First off, Jamie Foxx couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Waltz and DiCaprio's shoulders had to be killing them after carrying his dead weight through 3/4 of the movie. The last 45 minutes was inexcusably bad.
And this wasn't typical Tarantino; typical Tarantino would have at least had some interesting plot twists and quirks. This couldn't have been any more formulaic. Totally wasted performances by Leo and Sam Jackson, and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending to make black people feel like justice was served or something.
The more I think about it, the more I realize I didn't like it, and the more I wish Tarantino could have made a real Western.
[QUOTE=heyhey]I would say with Pulp Fiction he elevated the material to a level of great depth and originality and rose above the slick homages and dialogue that characterize the rest of his movies. but yea I wasn't particularly fond of Django although I did think Leo did a good job.[/QUOTE]
For sure Pulp Fiction had much more depth than his other movies (although I've never seen reservoir dogs; shame on me). However, it still has his over-the-top violence and lack of any meaningful themes (and thus is still shallow like his other movies).
Ultimately Tarantino has made a living off of shocking people and including controversial topics in his stories.
[QUOTE=johndeeregreen]First off, Jamie Foxx couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Waltz and DiCaprio's shoulders had to be killing them after carrying his dead weight through 3/4 of the movie. The last 45 minutes was inexcusably bad.
And this wasn't typical Tarantino; typical Tarantino would have at least had some interesting plot twists and quirks. This couldn't have been any more formulaic. Totally wasted performances by Leo and Sam Jackson, and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending to make black people feel like justice was served or something.
The more I think about it, the more I realize I didn't like it, and the more I wish Tarantino could have made a real Western.[/QUOTE]
whats the point in bolding all your post...
:applause:
[QUOTE=johndeeregreen]and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending [/QUOTE]
Eh, you could really say the same about Basterds. Or Kill Bill. Or Jackie Brown.
I will say that Django is a bit lacking in plot compared to Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, but it fits perfectly with the rest of his portfolio. Every Tarantino movie is just a collection of "ultra cool" campy scenes where the overall plot is only there as a vehicle to have those scenes.
The Kill Bill films (even the first) went beyond just being cool and campy. The first embraced the artifice and somehow was a terrific film. The second one is a bit of a western and even better.
This film is good...but Foxx is not that good an he's not given much to do. DiCaprio is terrific and the best scene in the film is his going off. That was tense. Jackson was also great.
But Walt was genuinely terrific and the best in show. Such control of his character.
I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed this film from start to finish. I had virtually no complaints. I suppose to each their own. I didn't come in with unbelievable expectations, so maybe that helped in preventing me from becoming disappointed.
I didn't enjoy it at all.
Mixing spaghetti westerns with slavery was a bit of a stretch. And adding Rick Ross and 'Pac to a movie set in the 1800's was a questionable move.
If it was in an "alternate reality" then why reference real books like the 3 Musketeers?
To me it seemed like he wanted to give black people a hero but the situation was all jacked up. No one survives oppression like that on their own. How foxx's character learned how to shoot a gun and kill 30 or so armed men who've been shooting since they were young amazes me:facepalm At least let him get grazed or wounded to make it SOMEWHAT realistic.
And there were a few scenes that were downright painful to watch....
I loved Pulp, Kill Bill, even Dawn of the Dead (for what it's worth), I just couldn't help not liking this one even though i had positive feelings going in.
He just didn't pull it off.
I saw it and enjoyed it a lot. I was really stoned though and any movie can be enjoyable when you are high...but then again I also saw The Last Stand stoned and thought it was average at best.
I loved it. Tarantino's best movie since Pulp Fiction. Django richly deserves its Oscar nom for best picture.
"Killin' white people and getting paid? What's not to like."
I think he just was trying to make a deep south version of a sergio leone spaghetti western. Can't wait to see it
Damn, sometimes terrible posters in the NBA forum make good posters in the Off Court Lounge, and vice versa. Not in Mr. Jabbars case.
[QUOTE=johndeeregreen]First off, Jamie Foxx couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Waltz and DiCaprio's shoulders had to be killing them after carrying his dead weight through 3/4 of the movie. The last 45 minutes was inexcusably bad.
And this wasn't typical Tarantino; typical Tarantino would have at least had some interesting plot twists and quirks. This couldn't have been any more formulaic. Totally wasted performances by Leo and Sam Jackson, and a cheesy, overtly predictable ending to make [B]black people feel like justice was served or something.
[/B]
The more I think about it, the more I realize I didn't like it, and the more I wish Tarantino could have made a real Western.[/QUOTE]
:biggums: Then why is Schultz on Django's side? Or Stephen with the whites?
[QUOTE=D-Wade316]:biggums: Then why is Schultz on Django's side? Or Stephen with the whites?[/QUOTE]
Why are you asking questions that have nothing to do with what I said? How does Tarantino making a slavery movie that actually appeases black audiences connect at all with Christoph Waltz's character being on Django's side? Use your head.
[QUOTE=Mr. Jabbar]It almost made me sick. Its cornball joke after cornball joke with over the top performances. A linear boring 2:40 hrs long story line.
This is a prime example of when good acting goes to waste.
This is a decent movie on its own, dont get me wrong. But when comparing with Tarantinos previous works it almost looks like he was more interested in making a western than making a good movie....
"the D is silent" weak ass movie phrase too :facepalm :facepalm, stop forcing the issue quentin...[/QUOTE]
Finally someone that agrees with me:bowdown:
Seriously, I've only talked to one other person who didn't walk away loving this film. I even admit that I liked watching it. Once I left the theater I just felt so unsatisfied thinking about this film. There is nothing I take away from this film. I don't want to see it again. No great dialogue. The story and character development were weak. Just a overrated movie in my opinion.
[QUOTE=johndeeregreen]Why are you asking questions that have nothing to do with what I said? How does Tarantino making a slavery movie that actually appeases black audiences connect at all with Christoph Waltz's character being on Django's side? Use your head.[/QUOTE]
Dude dafuq. The ending did appease blacks but in no way did I think Tarantino sided with blacks. That seems to be the undertone of your statement.
[QUOTE=Mr. Jabbar]"the D is silent" weak ass movie phrase too :facepalm :facepalm, stop forcing the issue quentin...[/QUOTE]I know that line was in trailers for the film and whatnot, but I do not believe it was in Tarentino's original screenplay. I also do not think the reasoning for the inclusion of such a line was for the sake of being a movie phrase, if that makes any difference. Instead, it was added as a means to reference the original Django, who played the character asking Jamie Foxx's name in the film. That is why, when Foxx says, "The D is silent", the other actor (Franco Nero) says, "I know". Because Nero [i]was[/i] Django. It was an ode of sorts.
Nero in the original Django: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Ge2hmSTbo[/url]
[QUOTE=Go Getter]I didn't enjoy it at all.
Mixing spaghetti westerns with slavery was a bit of a stretch. And adding Rick Ross and 'Pac to a movie set in the 1800's was a questionable move.
If it was in an "alternate reality" then why reference real books like the 3 Musketeers?
To me it seemed like he wanted to give black people a hero but the situation was all jacked up. No one survives oppression like that on their own. How foxx's character learned how to shoot a gun and kill 30 or so armed men who've been shooting since they were young amazes me:facepalm At least let him get grazed or wounded to make it SOMEWHAT realistic.
And there were a few scenes that were downright painful to watch....
I loved Pulp, Kill Bill, even Dawn of the Dead (for what it's worth), I just couldn't help not liking this one even though i had positive feelings going in.
He just didn't pull it off.[/QUOTE]I respect your feelings on the film. I can completely see how many folks could watch it and not enjoy it. Even with that said though, I do not believe Django being a fictional movie where unrealistic things happen means real life references must not be used, such as The Three Muskateers you mentioned. I'm not sure if I follow the logic there; don't many fantasy movies still reference portions of reality?
I did not come into the film expecting a riveting tale mirroring the real life struggles of a slave. I came in expecting a Quentin Tarentino film about a slave who rises up in spectacular fashion and flips the script, similar to how the tables were turned in Inglorious Basterds. Was a real life replica of Django possible? I do not believe so, but that's part of what made it fun for me. I knew it'd be unrealistic in many aspects but that was a big part of the draw. Django taking out a room full of cronies felt no more unrealistic than Uma Thurman blading through the Crazy 88's. If I wanted realism and formula, I'm not sure a Tarentino film would be the first place I'd look.
Also, I'm not a big fan of either, but 2Pac and Rick Ross both worked for me in this film. If someone told me they'd have some music featured beforehand, I'm not sure I would have been pumped about that. But for me, they both worked. From the start, I let myself escape into the world Tarentino created here and as a result, I was quite entertained.
[QUOTE=RoseCity07]Once I left the theater I just felt so unsatisfied thinking about this film.[/QUOTE]Just as with the other posters I quoted, I respect your feelings on this film, but that one line caught my attention just because it was polar opposite feeling of that of my friends, family, and self. I came out feeling awesome. And when I asked my younger brother what [i]he[/i] thought of the film, he said, "It's was a feel-good movie". It sounded ridiculous, considering the violence, bloodshed, and death, but he was kind of on point. It was one heckuva rising up.
[QUOTE=RoseCity07]Finally someone that agrees with me:bowdown:
Seriously, I've only talked to one other person who didn't walk away loving this film. I even admit that I liked watching it. Once I left the theater I just felt so unsatisfied thinking about this film. There is nothing I take away from this film. I don't want to see it again. No great dialogue. The story and character development were weak. Just a overrated movie in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my feelings when leaving the theater. Nothing memorable about it overall, absolutely linear simplistic plot with no twists whatsoever. Wholeheartedly agree with that other poster who said the last 40 mins are inexcusably bad, I was just waiting for the thing to finish already...
[QUOTE=Mr. Jabbar]Exactly my feelings when leaving the theater. Nothing memorable about it overall, absolutely linear simplistic plot with no twists whatsoever. Wholeheartedly agree with that other poster who said the last 40 mins are inexcusably bad, I was just waiting for the thing to finish already...[/QUOTE]
Nobody gives a shit about your opinion. I didn't even read what you said but the fact that it was from 'Mr. Jabbar' basically stamped it as trash. That is the reputation you have given on these boards, lad.
[QUOTE=Smoke117]Nobody gives a shit about your opinion. I didn't even read what you said but the fact that it was from 'Mr. Jabbar' basically stamped it as trash. That is the reputation you have given on these boards, lad.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for visiting my thread though, appreciate it :cheers:
[QUOTE=Smoke117]Nobody gives a shit about your opinion. I didn't even read what you said but the fact that it was from 'Mr. Jabbar' basically stamped it as trash. That is the reputation you have given on these boards, lad.[/QUOTE]
:kobe:
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]The Kill Bill films (even the first) went beyond just being cool and campy. The first embraced the artifice and somehow was a terrific film. The second one is a bit of a western and even better.
This film is good...but Foxx is not that good an he's not given much to do. DiCaprio is terrific and the best scene in the film is his going off. That was tense. Jackson was also great.
[B]But Walt was genuinely terrific and the best in show. Such control of his characte[/B]r.[/QUOTE]
Am I missing something? He did a great job, but I don't see how it was Oscar worthy. This movie was all Leo and Sam Jackson for the most part.
[QUOTE=Mr. Jabbar]The thing about Foxx, the dude looks always too "cool", "in control", with something smart to say, and is the "ultimate well trained assasin". We already had Waltz for that not to mention he impersonates a black slave and it doesn't fits his role in the slightest, dude should have been alot more down to earth with his extravaganza emerging from other places...
The Waltz hype comes from the average movie watcher who can also find great joy in any other overplayed character for the sakes of it being overplayed.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there are a ton of actors that could do much more with the Django character. Denzel for sure, but he was too old for the role. Maybe Terrance Howard, but he doesn't really have the charisma of Foxx. Look at Will Smith. He could act circles around Foxx, but im not buying for a second he could play Django anymore realistically. You always get the feeling Foxx is in control throughout the whole movie. Thats just my opinion though. Im biased and have always been a Foxx fan.
[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]I don't think there are a ton of actors that could do much more with the Django character. Denzel for sure, but he was too old for the role. Maybe Terrance Howard, but he doesn't really have the charisma of Foxx. Look at Will Smith. He could act circles around Foxx, but im not buying for a second he could play Django anymore realistically. You always get the feeling Foxx is in control throughout the whole movie. Thats just my opinion though. Im biased and have always been a Foxx fan.[/QUOTE]
Terrance Howard? Lmao here. Thanks for that.
I thought it was entertaining. I didn't go in with huge expectations though.
[QUOTE=IGOTGAME]Terrance Howard? Lmao here. Thanks for that.[/QUOTE]
No problem.
[QUOTE=SilkkTheShocker]I don't think there are a ton of actors that could do much more with the Django character. Denzel for sure, but he was too old for the role. Maybe Terrance Howard, but he doesn't really have the charisma of Foxx. Look at Will Smith. He could act circles around Foxx, but im not buying for a second he could play Django anymore realistically. You always get the feeling Foxx is in control throughout the whole movie. Thats just my opinion though. Im biased and have always been a Foxx fan.[/QUOTE]
What about Idris Elba?
I had no expectations, was baked, and truly enjoyed the film.
So many clueless people here. Movie was fantastic.
And can someone explain to me how one can critique a movie for being too "linear"? I mean, this isn't an rpg or a chose your own story fantasy book, it's a fkin movie. By that logic, any movie that's not memento, pulp fiction, reservoir dogs, etc sucks.
Adventure movies and western are supposed to be linear. That's what makes you appreciate the journey. You think The Lord of the Rings should have started with frodo in Mordor? :facepalm
[QUOTE=macmac]So many clueless people here. Movie was fantastic.
And can someone explain to me how one can critique a movie for being too "linear"? I mean, this isn't an rpg or a chose your own story fantasy book, it's a fkin movie. By that logic, any movie that's not memento, pulp fiction, reservoir dogs, etc sucks.
Adventure movies and western are supposed to be linear. That's what makes you appreciate the journey. You think The Lord of the Rings should have started with frodo in Mordor? :facepalm[/QUOTE]
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.