Django Unchained -- new Tarantino film (1 Viewer)

[mon]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

I can kind of see where you both are coming from here. On one hand, no one makes movies like Tarantino. On the other hand, you have to compare this to his other efforts - and a movie like Inglourious Basterds was more ambitious and more worthy of a best picture nod.

Totally agree with jdoggydogg here. Really liked Django, but Inglourious Basterds was more worthy of a nomination.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I said this before but I just feel like saying it again....

Tarantino needs to do something different. The last 5 movies he's done (Django, Inglorious Basterds, Death Proof, Kill Bill v2, Kill Bill v1) are following someone on a quest to kill people. I like them all, but he needs to come up with a new type of storyline.

EDIT: I feel like he isn't using his all his skills to creatively contruct a plot or relationship between characters like he did with his first 3 films. Going on a killing quest with a linear storyline and just changing the backdrop and themes is starting to get old.

On that note:Quentin Tarantino Says Smaller, 'Jackie Brown'-Esque Film Might Be Next

Now, before we dive into this little update from Quentin Tarantino on what he might direct next, let's just remember that over the course of the press tour for "Django Unchained," he's had a lot of ideas. He's already teased that 'Django' and "Inglorious Basterds" could be part of a loose trilogy, he's talked about a possible 'Basterds' spinoff entitled "Killer Crow," a desire to shoot a movie in Australia, or maybe make another slavery/western film or gangster picture. You get the idea. But continuing to promote "Django Unchained" as it opens overseas, Tarantino has added a new possible next movie to his list, and one that could find him drawing things down a bit. Chatting with French publication Les InRocks, Tarantino was asked if he knows what he'll do next. "[i have] a vague idea," he said. "A 'smaller' film than 'Django Unchained,' in the vein of 'Jackie Brown.' "

Now it should noted that "smaller" being in quotes may indicate the size of the production is probably relative to what he's been doing over the past few years, but perhaps Tarantino wants to knock one out fast. Production on "Django Unchained" wasn't exactly smooth, with a bakers dozen of actors coming and going as the schedule shifted and changed, and Tarantino rewriting on the fly (Anthony LaPaglia, who left the movie, called it "out of control") and working on a tight deadline to get it finished in time. So maybe he's just looking for something a bit more manageable in size and scope; a movie lighter on its feet and easier to maneuver from a production standpoint.

We'll leave the speculation to you as to which of the many, many projects Tarantino has mentioned over the years this could be. Maybe he resurrected something we thought had been left for dead. Or maybe it's a movie he's already mentioned on the press circuit so far. Essentially, who knows? "Django Unchained" basically took everyone by surprise when it was announced, so we'll just have to wait and see, and we'd wager Tarantino likely still has to write a script first. But considering 'Django' is his biggest box office hit at home in his career, Tarantino can probably pretty much do whatever he wants at this point, so it's a bit interesting that his next may be something smaller.

So until we know more, let's revisit "Django Unchained" for a moment. As diehard Tarantino fans know, the director has a universe of characters (not quite Marvel sized) that have been referenced directly or not throughout his pictures. For example: Remember Lee Donowitz (Saul Rubinek) in "True Romance"? Well, Eli Roth's Donny Donowitz from 'Basterds' is his father. And eagle eyed viewers of "Django Unchained" have spotted a connection to "Pulp Fiction" which is admittedly minor, but still pretty interesting. It turns out that Captain Koons (Christopher Walken) from "Pulp Fiction" is a descendant of Crazy Craig Koons, of the Smitty Bacall Gang in "Django Unchained." See the image below (via Movies).

 

[jdoggydogg]

Tarantino haters will love this interview:

The /Filmcast: After Dark – Ep. 214 – Armond White on Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty

Dave, Devindra, and Adam chat with film critic Armond White about Quentin Tarantino’s work in Django Unchained, as well as why Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance and Taken 2 are better films than Zero Dark Thirty. Be sure to check out Armond’s Django review, as well as his “Better Than” list for 2012.

 

[drummer]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

I can kind of see where you both are coming from here. On one hand, no one makes movies like Tarantino. On the other hand, you have to compare this to his other efforts - and a movie like Inglourious Basterds was more ambitious and more worthy of a best picture nod.

Totally agree with jdoggydogg here. Really liked Django, but Inglourious Basterds was more worthy of a nomination.

In 1968 -The FIVE Best Picture nominees, not EIGHT:

In The Heat Of The Night - But Tarantino has teh study that UCLA and NYU will base race on for years!

Bonnie and Clyde - Where Penn's mixed gun shots that were inspired by Shane! Totally Tarantino like!

Doctor Doolittle - What if Tarantino had Brad Pitt break out in "We Gonna Kill Nazi's!" scored by Ted Nugent! With talking Nazi Goat's blood spilled as a sort of Biblical sacrifice!

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - What, no tasty Big Kahuna Burger to dine on? #### Sidney Portier! Samuel L Jackson and the F-Word FTW!

The Graduate - Inglourious MiLfs!

Best Directors:

Arther Penn - Bonnie and Clyde

Richard Brooks - In Cold Blood

Norman Jewison - In The Heat Of The Night

Stanley Kramer - Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner

WINNER - Mike Nichols - The Graduate

 

[mon]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

I can kind of see where you both are coming from here. On one hand, no one makes movies like Tarantino. On the other hand, you have to compare this to his other efforts - and a movie like Inglourious Basterds was more ambitious and more worthy of a best picture nod.

Totally agree with jdoggydogg here. Really liked Django, but Inglourious Basterds was more worthy of a nomination.

In 1968 -The FIVE Best Picture nominees, not EIGHT:

In The Heat Of The Night - But Tarantino has teh study that UCLA and NYU will base race on for years!

Bonnie and Clyde - Where Penn's mixed gun shots that were inspired by Shane! Totally Tarantino like!

Doctor Doolittle - What if Tarantino had Brad Pitt break out in "We Gonna Kill Nazi's!" scored by Ted Nugent! With talking Nazi Goat's blood spilled as a sort of Biblical sacrifice!

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - What, no tasty Big Kahuna Burger to dine on? #### Sidney Portier! Samuel L Jackson and the F-Word FTW!

The Graduate - Inglourious MiLfs!

Best Directors:

Arther Penn - Bonnie and Clyde

Richard Brooks - In Cold Blood

Norman Jewison - In The Heat Of The Night

Stanley Kramer - Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner

WINNER - Mike Nichols - The Graduate

You really march to a different you.

 

[drummer]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

I can kind of see where you both are coming from here. On one hand, no one makes movies like Tarantino. On the other hand, you have to compare this to his other efforts - and a movie like Inglourious Basterds was more ambitious and more worthy of a best picture nod.

Totally agree with jdoggydogg here. Really liked Django, but Inglourious Basterds was more worthy of a nomination.

In 1968 -The FIVE Best Picture nominees, not EIGHT:

In The Heat Of The Night - But Tarantino has teh study that UCLA and NYU will base race on for years!

Bonnie and Clyde - Where Penn's mixed gun shots that were inspired by Shane! Totally Tarantino like!

Doctor Doolittle - What if Tarantino had Brad Pitt break out in "We Gonna Kill Nazi's!" scored by Ted Nugent! With talking Nazi Goat's blood spilled as a sort of Biblical sacrifice!

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - What, no tasty Big Kahuna Burger to dine on? #### Sidney Portier! Samuel L Jackson and the F-Word FTW!

The Graduate - Inglourious MiLfs!

Best Directors:

Arther Penn - Bonnie and Clyde

Richard Brooks - In Cold Blood

Norman Jewison - In The Heat Of The Night

Stanley Kramer - Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner

WINNER - Mike Nichols - The Graduate

You really march to a different you.

All of the above do too. Not that I am near in that league of genius. It's just that "before we go sucking on ...", - to borrow from one of Harvey Keitel's most memorable but easily scripted phrases that could have had Paul Ruebens in that same role - period in any art form is key. Doing it in the less commercail way in a more tumultuous period during the Vietnam/Feminist/Civil Rights era means a lot more especially with a tighter post season, if you will

 

[mon]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

I can kind of see where you both are coming from here. On one hand, no one makes movies like Tarantino. On the other hand, you have to compare this to his other efforts - and a movie like Inglourious Basterds was more ambitious and more worthy of a best picture nod.

Totally agree with jdoggydogg here. Really liked Django, but Inglourious Basterds was more worthy of a nomination.

In 1968 -The FIVE Best Picture nominees, not EIGHT:

In The Heat Of The Night - But Tarantino has teh study that UCLA and NYU will base race on for years!

Bonnie and Clyde - Where Penn's mixed gun shots that were inspired by Shane! Totally Tarantino like!

Doctor Doolittle - What if Tarantino had Brad Pitt break out in "We Gonna Kill Nazi's!" scored by Ted Nugent! With talking Nazi Goat's blood spilled as a sort of Biblical sacrifice!

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - What, no tasty Big Kahuna Burger to dine on? #### Sidney Portier! Samuel L Jackson and the F-Word FTW!

The Graduate - Inglourious MiLfs!

Best Directors:

Arther Penn - Bonnie and Clyde

Richard Brooks - In Cold Blood

Norman Jewison - In The Heat Of The Night

Stanley Kramer - Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner

WINNER - Mike Nichols - The Graduate

You really march to a different you.

All of the above do too. Not that I am near in that league of genius. It's just that "before we go sucking on ...", - to borrow from one of Harvey Keitel's most memorable but easily scripted phrases that could have had Paul Ruebens in that same role - period in any art form is key. Doing it in the less commercail way in a more tumultuous period during the Vietnam/Feminist/Civil Rights era means a lot more especially with a tighter post season, if you will

Just curious, in what league of genius would you say you are?

 

[drummer]

Saw it recently and I'd give it a solid three stars. Good, not great, with fleeting moments of greatness.

I don't get this.I can understand people who love it (I did). I can understand people who hate it too. But I have no idea how you can walk out of that movie and think, meh, it was pretty good.

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

I can kind of see where you both are coming from here. On one hand, no one makes movies like Tarantino. On the other hand, you have to compare this to his other efforts - and a movie like Inglourious Basterds was more ambitious and more worthy of a best picture nod.

Totally agree with jdoggydogg here. Really liked Django, but Inglourious Basterds was more worthy of a nomination.

In 1968 -The FIVE Best Picture nominees, not EIGHT:

In The Heat Of The Night - But Tarantino has teh study that UCLA and NYU will base race on for years!

Bonnie and Clyde - Where Penn's mixed gun shots that were inspired by Shane! Totally Tarantino like!

Doctor Doolittle - What if Tarantino had Brad Pitt break out in "We Gonna Kill Nazi's!" scored by Ted Nugent! With talking Nazi Goat's blood spilled as a sort of Biblical sacrifice!

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - What, no tasty Big Kahuna Burger to dine on? #### Sidney Portier! Samuel L Jackson and the F-Word FTW!

The Graduate - Inglourious MiLfs!

Best Directors:

Arther Penn - Bonnie and Clyde

Richard Brooks - In Cold Blood

Norman Jewison - In The Heat Of The Night

Stanley Kramer - Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner

WINNER - Mike Nichols - The Graduate

You really march to a different you.

All of the above do too. Not that I am near in that league of genius. It's just that "before we go sucking on ...", - to borrow from one of Harvey Keitel's most memorable but easily scripted phrases that could have had Paul Ruebens in that same role - period in any art form is key. Doing it in the less commercail way in a more tumultuous period during the Vietnam/Feminist/Civil Rights era means a lot more especially with a tighter post season, if you will

Just curious, in what league of genius would you say you are?

FFA baby! We're all genius and stuff here. Especially goonsquad. He's the bartender.

 

[joffer]

Wasn't crazy about the last 15 mins, but overall I liked it a lot. Just what you expect from QT

 

[Sabertooth]

Doen Johnson stole the show.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As I alluded to in another post: there were aspects of the movie that simply didn't work for me. I go into a Tarantino movie expecting a convoluted premise and cartoonish violence and caricatures. I'm fine with that stuff, especially in the context of his body of work. But I thought he went overboard at times. The initial shootout at the plantation for one, especially when a bunch of armed hillbillies in the heat of battle opt to let Django and his wife live. And then further when Django is spared once again moments before he's neutered. Hell, they even had to sit Samuel L. Jackson down to explain that move to the audience, since it made little sense. Pretty much the entire movie after that shootout didn't work for me, although I did like the moment when the slave he'd upbraided earlier smiled after handing Django the bag of dynamite.Look, I realize this was a revenge fantasy film in many ways, but I don't think it needed to veer so wildly into parody. I felt that was kind of the easy way out for Tarantino. It was pretty good, no "meh" about it. I'd recommend it. I'll probably watch it again. But I don't consider it Best Picture material.

This is how I felt. It also didn't have to help that I had to go to the bathroom like Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own for the last 30 minutes of the movie.Christoph Waltz was great, and I thought Foxx and Leo were just a hair or two below him. I'd kill for a movie with Waltz and Daniel Day Lewis.The movie had a lot of great moments, but I'll be more blunt: the last 20 minutes were dumb. The handshake scene started off great -- you can really see the tension build, one of the best things QT does -- but from the moment Waltz shot him, the movie fell off a cliff. It's like QT had all these great ideas and then just ran out of them.

 

[cstu]

Wasn't crazy about the last 15 mins, but overall I liked it a lot. Just what you expect from QT

I don't expect cartoons from QT and that's what he turned parts of the movie into.

 

[mad sweeney]

I watched it last night finally. It was actually an Academy screener so it wasn't even a very good rip of the movie, but that actually worked well because it looked like an older movie and fit the spaghetti western motif. Overall it was very enjoyable, but I just don't think it's even in the same league as Basterds. IB looked and felt like a very carefully constructed and executed epic from an experienced filmmaker. DU felt like that same guy spending more time having fun and getting as many of his friends and working class acting heroes into an over the top homage. I don't say this as a negative, but the intent seemed to be apparent between his last 2 flicks. So many great sw homages going on, even just some fleeting moments or clip of music.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The movie had a lot of great moments, but I'll be more blunt: the last 20 minutes were dumb. The handshake scene started off great -- you can really see the tension build, one of the best things QT does -- but from the moment Waltz shot him, the movie fell off a cliff. It's like QT had all these great ideas and then just ran out of them.

I liked the movie, but I agree with this completely. Once Waltz is gone, the momentum is over.

 

[Raider Nation]

I know this film was a longshot to win Best Picture (50 to 1, I believe), but am I the ONLY person who liked this movie better than Argo AND Lincoln? I know it doesn't matter to some, but Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script, and Lincoln succeeded mainly on the back of an outstanding (as usual) performance from DDL. Take him out of that film, and it's hard to stay awake.

Django gets better with each viewing, as most of QT's films do. I think it will be appreciated more ten years from now.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I know this film was a longshot to win Best Picture (50 to 1, I believe), but am I the ONLY person who liked this movie better than Argo AND Lincoln? I know it doesn't matter to some, but Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script, and Lincoln succeeded mainly on the back of an outstanding (as usual) performance from DDL. Take him out of that film, and it's hard to stay awake.

Django gets better with each viewing, as most of QT's films do. I think it will be appreciated more ten years from now.

Have yet to see Lincoln, but I thought both Django and Silver Linings Playbook were better than Argo, and I didnt even have a problem with the creative license aspect.

 

[Raider Nation]

Have yet to see Lincoln

http://www.thedarewall.com/tv/watch/lincoln-2012Enjoy!

 

[jdoggydogg]

Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script

I need you people to go back now and fact check all your favorite historical dramas. Pretty much all of them have plenty of fabrication.

 

[Raider Nation]

Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script

I need you people to go back now and fact check all your favorite historical dramas. Pretty much all of them have plenty of fabrication.

Some latitude I can live with. But Argo was pretty much a fantasy, other than Ben's character mentioning something about hostages.

 

[Fennis]

Wasn't crazy about the last 15 mins, but overall I liked it a lot. Just what you expect from QT

I don't expect cartoons from QT and that's what he turned parts of the movie into.

That’s what Tarantino does. In Kill Bill, for example, he did it quite literally.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Have yet to see Lincoln

http://www.thedarewall.com/tv/watch/lincoln-2012Enjoy!

Never heard of this site, whats it good for? Did they just get Lincoln or movies after theyre on DVD, before?

 

[Raider Nation]

Have yet to see Lincoln

http://www.thedarewall.com/tv/watch/lincoln-2012Enjoy!

Never heard of this site, whats it good for? Did they just get Lincoln or movies after theyre on DVD, before?

Not sure. They have almost everything I've been looking for, whether it's TV or a movie.Experiment a little bit with the different hosts for each movie. Some are more reliable than others (too much buffering, etc).

 

[jdoggydogg]

Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script

I need you people to go back now and fact check all your favorite historical dramas. Pretty much all of them have plenty of fabrication.

Some latitude I can live with. But Argo was pretty much a fantasy, other than Ben's character mentioning something about hostages.

Did you read the post where I listed the fact checking from Braveheart? Tons of fantasy in that completely made up. And the period is irrelevant. The movie takes plenty of known facts and wildly distorts them.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script

I need you people to go back now and fact check all your favorite historical dramas. Pretty much all of them have plenty of fabrication.

Some latitude I can live with. But Argo was pretty much a fantasy, other than Ben's character mentioning something about hostages.

Did you read the post where I listed the fact checking from Braveheart? Tons of fantasy in that completely made up. And the period is irrelevant. The movie takes plenty of known facts and wildly distorts them.

Here's why I am obsessed with this:If you don't like Argo, that's an opinion I cannot argue with. But people who cite Argo's playing loose with the facts as one of the reasons they don't like the film, that isn't a valid criticism unless you hold the same standard to all the other historical films you love that are rife with the same kinds of fabrications.

 

[Raider Nation]

Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script

I need you people to go back now and fact check all your favorite historical dramas. Pretty much all of them have plenty of fabrication.

Some latitude I can live with. But Argo was pretty much a fantasy, other than Ben's character mentioning something about hostages.

Did you read the post where I listed the fact checking from Braveheart? Tons of fantasy in that completely made up. And the period is irrelevant. The movie takes plenty of known facts and wildly distorts them.

Here's why I am obsessed with this:If you don't like Argo, that's an opinion I cannot argue with. But people who cite Argo's playing loose with the facts as one of the reasons they don't like the film, that isn't a valid criticism unless you hold the same standard to all the other historical films you love that are rife with the same kinds of fabrications.

Fair, but I hold Oscar winning pictures up to a higher standard than Showgirls.

 

[doowain]

Watched this last night. Thoroughly entertained. Something seemed to be missing for me though? Not sure what. Having recently re-watched both Kill Bill movies, there was something from those movies that this one didn't have that I miss. Maybe with a couple more viewings I'll feel differently, but that's my initial reaction.

I will say though....the scene with Don Johnson and the rest of the "pre-KKK" bag heads before the raid. HFS. One of the funniest scenes from any movie in a long, long time for me. Wife and I watched it back 3 times after the movie was over.

 

[Chaka]

Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script

I need you people to go back now and fact check all your favorite historical dramas. Pretty much all of them have plenty of fabrication.

Some latitude I can live with. But Argo was pretty much a fantasy, other than Ben's character mentioning something about hostages.

Did you read the post where I listed the fact checking from Braveheart? Tons of fantasy in that completely made up. And the period is irrelevant. The movie takes plenty of known facts and wildly distorts them.

Here's why I am obsessed with this:If you don't like Argo, that's an opinion I cannot argue with. But people who cite Argo's playing loose with the facts as one of the reasons they don't like the film, that isn't a valid criticism unless you hold the same standard to all the other historical films you love that are rife with the same kinds of fabrications.

Fair, but I hold Oscar winning pictures up to a higher standard than Showgirls.

So you are highly critical of Braveheart too?

 

[NCCommish]

Argo turned me off with the ridiculous creative license they took with the script

I need you people to go back now and fact check all your favorite historical dramas. Pretty much all of them have plenty of fabrication.

Some latitude I can live with. But Argo was pretty much a fantasy, other than Ben's character mentioning something about hostages.

Did you read the post where I listed the fact checking from Braveheart? Tons of fantasy in that completely made up. And the period is irrelevant. The movie takes plenty of known facts and wildly distorts them.

Here's why I am obsessed with this:If you don't like Argo, that's an opinion I cannot argue with. But people who cite Argo's playing loose with the facts as one of the reasons they don't like the film, that isn't a valid criticism unless you hold the same standard to all the other historical films you love that are rife with the same kinds of fabrications.

Fair, but I hold Oscar winning pictures up to a higher standard than Showgirls.

So you are highly critical of Braveheart too?

And Titanic I would assume.

 

[jdoggydogg]

People that look to film for historical accuracy are fooling themselves. The large majority of films play loose with the facts. Like it, don't like it. I don't care. But if you single out one movie with this criticism, you need to use that same filter on every movie you like.

If you don't like Argo, that's an opinion I cannot argue with. But people who cite Argo's playing loose with the facts as one of the reasons they don't like the film, that isn't a valid criticism unless you hold the same standard to all the other historical films you love that are rife with the same kinds of fabrications.

Fair, but I hold Oscar winning pictures up to a higher standard than Showgirls.

 

[Juxtatarot]

The movie had a lot of great moments, but I'll be more blunt: the last 20 minutes were dumb. The handshake scene started off great -- you can really see the tension build, one of the best things QT does -- but from the moment Waltz shot him, the movie fell off a cliff. It's like QT had all these great ideas and then just ran out of them.

I liked the movie, but I agree with this completely. Once Waltz is gone, the momentum is over.

100% agree. If you're going to kill off your most interesting, funny character, at least do it in a semi-realistic way.

 

[Abraham]

I'm about 15 minutes past the handshake scene and think this is one of the better movies I saw last year. Really liking it. My compliant is that some of the Tarantinoy things are unneeded and take away from an otherwise really good western that seems to fit in today's movie arena. And as much as I liked WAltz, I thought DiCaprio stole all of his scenes.

 

[Sabertooth]

DiCaprio is money in just about everything he does.

 

[Abraham]

DiCaprio is money in just about everything he does.

I used to think he was awful. I thought his acting in Titanic was awful. But since then he has been great in everything he's done. And he's done a good job choosing good roles/movies.

 

[jdoggydogg]

DiCaprio is money in just about everything he does.

I used to think he was awful. I thought his acting in Titanic was awful. But since then he has been great in everything he's done. And he's done a good job choosing good roles/movies.

DiCaprio is money.

 

[Gator Shawn]

DiCaprio is money in just about everything he does.

I used to think he was awful. I thought his acting in Titanic was awful. But since then he has been great in everything he's done. And he's done a good job choosing good roles/movies.

DiCaprio is money.

He really is, and the older he gets, the better he will do with alot of the roles he gets. He was fantastic in "Catch me if you Can" but I found him too young to be convincing in Blood Diamond. He's going to knock Gatsby out of the park because that is right in his wheelhouse now.

 

[17seconds]

who wins in a newfound manlove competition? DiCaprio vs Timberlake

 

[Abraham]

Wolf of Wall Street should be fantastic.

 

[lbouchard]

DiCaprio is money in just about everything he does.

I used to think he was awful. I thought his acting in Titanic was awful. But since then he has been great in everything he's done. And he's done a good job choosing good roles/movies.

DiCaprio is money.

He really is, and the older he gets, the better he will do with alot of the roles he gets. He was fantastic in "Catch me if you Can" but I found him too young to be convincing in Blood Diamond. He's going to knock Gatsby out of the park because that is right in his wheelhouse now.

I cannot wait for Great Gatsby. Was my favorite book in HS.

 

[Gator Shawn]

who wins in a newfound manlove competition? DiCaprio vs Timberlake

DiCaprio easy. My dilemma is DiCaprio versus Matt Damon.

 

[eoMMan]

It was good. Not great, but good.

John Malcovich was definitely deserving of his Oscar award as the german dude.

 

[jdoggydogg]

who wins in a newfound manlove competition? DiCaprio vs Timberlake

DiCaprio easy. My dilemma is DiCaprio versus Matt Damon.

...and they're both so good in The Departed, it's hard to choose.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

DiCaprio and Gatsby look brutally awful, and I like Di Caprio

 

[Kenny Powers]

who wins in a newfound manlove competition? DiCaprio vs Timberlake

DiCaprio easy. My dilemma is DiCaprio versus Matt Damon.

...and they're both so good in The Departed, it's hard to choose.

Departed > any movie since 97

 

[jdoggydogg]

who wins in a newfound manlove competition? DiCaprio vs Timberlake

DiCaprio easy. My dilemma is DiCaprio versus Matt Damon.

...and they're both so good in The Departed, it's hard to choose.

Departed > any movie since 97

Criminally underrated.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Watched this last night. Thoroughly entertained. Something seemed to be missing for me though? Not sure what. Having recently re-watched both Kill Bill movies, there was something from those movies that this one didn't have that I miss. Maybe with a couple more viewings I'll feel differently, but that's my initial reaction.

I will say though....the scene with Don Johnson and the rest of the "pre-KKK" bag heads before the raid. HFS. One of the funniest scenes from any movie in a long, long time for me. Wife and I watched it back 3 times after the movie was over.

I was the opposite - I found that scene mildly humorous, but at the same time that was just about the time that the film started losing me. And then I had 2 more hours to sit through. To me, this movie just didn't seem to go anywhere.

As I posted in the other thread - Tarantino just needs to try something different. Most of his movies feel like a rehash of the others and I am getting kind of bored with him. It's one thing to have your own style or palate, and it's another to retread the same movies and I feel like Tarantino is starting to be guilty of the latter. He shows flashes of brilliance - mainly the opening sequence and the bar scenes of I.B., but I didn't think anything in Django approached that level. I know he gets a lot of love, and he is great at getting brilliant performances out of actors, but I am no longer convinced that he is in the 'must watch' directors tier anymore.

Maybe this is something for a separate thread: If I had to make a list of current working directors and rank them based on my willingness to see a movie of theirs without knowing anything about the movie, I am wondering if Tarantino would even crack my top 15. That makes my 20yr old self weep a little.

 

[KarmaPolice]

It was good. Not great, but good.John Malcovich was definitely deserving of his Oscar award as the german dude.

 

[Sabertooth]

It was good. Not great, but good.John Malcovich was definitely deserving of his Oscar award as the german dude.

This schtick never gets old. No wait, the other thing.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I really liked this. However, when compared to other Tarantino films, its near the bottom. Maybe I need to watch it again, but at 2:45 that's takes effort.

Bastards was better. This might be tarantino's worst movie actually, but its still good, if that makes sense. (I'm a Jackie brown fan).

 

[The Ref]

I really liked this. However, when compared to other Tarantino films, its near the bottom. Maybe I need to watch it again, but at 2:45 that's takes effort.Bastards was better. This might be tarantino's worst movie actually, but its still good, if that makes sense. (I'm a Jackie brown fan).

This.

Just saw DU last night for the first time. Would have been better if the end wasn't a Free For All. Thought Leo was every bit as Oscar worthy as Waltz. And yeah "The Raid" was funny, flashbacks to Blazing Saddles.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I thought it was his ONLY good film since Pulp Fiction.