Yeah, It's not as EPIC as Transformers 2 and 3, or as EPIC as Green Lantern... or, umm... yah.
Quentin Tarantino's 'Django Unchained'
- Thread starter ChaserFan
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Yeah, It's not as EPIC as Transformers 2 and 3, or as EPIC as Green Lantern... or, umm... yah.
Just got back from seeing this. A well done flick but did I really watch a dude
Please someone tell me that was a prosthetic.Spoiler:
[ame]https://youtu.be/tNxyoHNCfZ0[/ame]
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 7,873
- Reaction score
- 1
Well, then you shouldn't be calling eachother niggaz in almost your various forms of media then you lil *****,you get no special treatment F U!, i don't see too many white people going ape **** over Hiemdall being black in the Thor motion picture which is just laughable IMO and a slap in the face at the same time.
LOL at his Jesus **** talk.
LOL at his Jesus **** talk.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 7,873
- Reaction score
- 1
Thank you Solid. With Avatar and Transformers 2 being high on your list of awesome movies, I can understand your feelings towards Tarantino.
Finally seeing it Saturday! It's only been 10 years that I have been waiting for Tarantino to do a Spaghetti Western...
XD
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
That dude stated that Jamie Foxx deserved to die for taking the Django script.
And yet....he's in Scary Movie 5. So.....
And yet....he's in Scary Movie 5. So.....
That is something that I didn't understand about the Kramer scandal. Saying it in movies is okay and sometimes on tv. White people say it in movies (and some comedians say it on their stand up shows) and people understand it is part of the show. Sure what Kramer said was pretty disrespectful and wrong for a person to say, but he was on a stage, technically. I don't understand how it is okay sometimes but it is not okay other times. I am not saying it is okay to say it but, I never got the Kramer scandal.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
LOL...what's not to get?
He attacked someone using a term that he shouldn't use to anyone. How the **** could you not comprehend that???
He attacked someone using a term that he shouldn't use to anyone. How the **** could you not comprehend that???
LOL...what's not to get?
He attacked someone using a term that he shouldn't use to anyone. How the **** could you not comprehend that???
no doctor, first of all, he didn't "attack someone" he was doing a stand up and he was answering to a Heckler. what I didn't get was the backlash. I have seen comedians use it before, white comedians. People also use it in movies.
The way Katt Williams was talking about Quentin reminded me of Kramer. If course he was offensive but so are others. Seems like people tend to get mad only at particular times, which I do not get.
Sure Kramer was a complete a-hole that night but he was doing a stand up, is not like he was in the street and randomly said it.
Do people don't get mad because it was on a script? because the actors don't really mean it?
How come no one got mad about this?
the question is, why is it okay some times but not other times? and when is it okay? in movies? movies are okay?
[ame]https://youtu.be/I-7f7vVCqvI[/ame]
[ame]https://youtu.be/PdtHZ_6oz9Q[/ame]
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
Because it wasn't used over a hundred times.
Look, while the word he used has a history with it, if you replace it with ANY other word, it would still be annoying. Repeating a word that many times isn't something someone should do. Let alone one that causes so much pain.
Now....yes it was set in "those" times. Yes it was probably used. But it could've been toned down.
Did it ruin the film? No. Not really. Is it a BIG BIG PROBLEM!??? No...once again, not really.
But it's an issue. And I've heard a nice point of view from my favorite critics, who are black, who do find the usage of the word somewhat offensive. And other things as well. But I understand. They don't hate the film for it, but it does bother them on a level I will never understand. And I can respect that.
I can't respect idiots like Spike Lee and Katt Williams running their mouths when they haven't even seen the film yet. Even if it STILL bothers them...hey, at least they saw it.
Look, while the word he used has a history with it, if you replace it with ANY other word, it would still be annoying. Repeating a word that many times isn't something someone should do. Let alone one that causes so much pain.
Now....yes it was set in "those" times. Yes it was probably used. But it could've been toned down.
Did it ruin the film? No. Not really. Is it a BIG BIG PROBLEM!??? No...once again, not really.
But it's an issue. And I've heard a nice point of view from my favorite critics, who are black, who do find the usage of the word somewhat offensive. And other things as well. But I understand. They don't hate the film for it, but it does bother them on a level I will never understand. And I can respect that.
I can't respect idiots like Spike Lee and Katt Williams running their mouths when they haven't even seen the film yet. Even if it STILL bothers them...hey, at least they saw it.
well yeah I need to see the movie but Katt Williams is so angry, it made me wonder. Then reminded me of the Kramer incident. I don't really get it Specially because the movie is not even set in present time.
It would be pretty funny if Katt sees Quentin and actually punches him
Reinhardt
Super Freak
This is my favorite speech on the word in context:
[ame]https://youtu.be/dF1NUposXVQ[/ame]
[ame]https://youtu.be/dF1NUposXVQ[/ame]
Just got back from seeing this. A well done flick but did I really watch a dudePlease someone tell me that was a prosthetic.
I see know one wants to touch this one. Are people pretending that scene didn't exist?
Anyway, thinking over the movie itself I'm finding myself less and less impressed.
Spoilers ahead.
"Django Unchained" refers to him being released from his chain like the dogs that ripped the slave apart, and I feel that his evolution from slave to rabid dog was unbecoming of his character and the subject matter.
He wasn't Siegfried slaying a dragon to rescue his fair maiden. Chris Waltz slew the dragon, he was the real "hero" who couldn't get over letting a man who feeds other men to dogs live. Django was just one of the dogs who only went on the offensive after they wanted to cut his ***** off and ship him off to a hole in the ground. He could have helped the slaves in the wagon that he abandoned (as Waltz did at the beginning of the movie) but he didn't (other than simply letting them live.)
He just went on an NC-17 killing spree that was quite uninspired. In fact a number of scenes just seemed like Western rehashes of prior Tarantino shockers. It had great dialogue and was beautifully filmed but I also hear the Magic Mike was the "best male stripper movie ever made." That doesn't mean its my cup of tea. A shame that the character devolved as the film went on. The first 2/3 of the film were just fantastic.
Django was prepared to "break character" under the right circumstances (as evidenced by him reaching for his pistol under the dinner table when Calvin was manhandling his wife.) He could have put the slave being eaten by dogs out of his misery with a quick bullet to the head in the name of "getting a move on" and that would have fit right in with his "rambunctous" persona.
He also could have done a better job of helping the slaves in the wagon at the end.
The whole thing just ended up feeling like a movie written by Quentin Tarantino but directed by Robert Rodriguez or Eli Roth. I didn't like that. DU was missing that QT polish that I'd grown so accustomed to. Regardless of his love for Sergio Leone he might have just been too out of his element on this one. He did a great job making a "Western" for the first half of the movie but the "Southern" at the end felt more like Planet Terror or From Dusk Till Dawn quality-wise. Not a good thing and not very QT. IMO of course.
He also could have done a better job of helping the slaves in the wagon at the end.
The whole thing just ended up feeling like a movie written by Quentin Tarantino but directed by Robert Rodriguez or Eli Roth. I didn't like that. DU was missing that QT polish that I'd grown so accustomed to. Regardless of his love for Sergio Leone he might have just been too out of his element on this one. He did a great job making a "Western" for the first half of the movie but the "Southern" at the end felt more like Planet Terror or From Dusk Till Dawn quality-wise. Not a good thing and not very QT. IMO of course.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
None of that would've happened.
He was not going to break character. Not even for a second. Hence why he stopped Shultz from saving Dartanian.
Django just wanted his wife back. And was prepared to do anything, and everything to get her back.
He was not going to break character. Not even for a second. Hence why he stopped Shultz from saving Dartanian.
Django just wanted his wife back. And was prepared to do anything, and everything to get her back.
Except that there was more to his character than that. He didn't want to kill a criminal in front of his son in order to earn money to buy his wife back. Yes Schultz convinced him of the prudence in taking the man's life but Django was a more sympathetic three dimensional character in the beginning and became one dimensional at the end. Made him less interesting to me. It would have been better if he had been Siegfried to his wife's Bruunhilde. But he wasn't. He was the attack dog of the real Siegfried (Schultz) who became "unchained" and just killed everyone for the sake of cheap splatter thrills. Okay so QT used the title of the movie quite literally. That was the cheap and easy way to wrap things up. Too bad.
Similar threads
