Escape to the Movies: Django Unchained
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
sounds good. just i still have to wait for it few month till its in the cinemas here in australia.
I would personally say that the destruction and removal of native Americans was our 'original sin' rather than 'imported slavery of people of African descent', but still a good point that it is a subject often glossed over by modern media. Hopefully I can check this one out!
Don't be that guy who goes around yelling "racism" at everything. Django was originally the name of the protagonist in many spaghetti westerns; as far as I know, there's only one real person of note (a Belgian jazz musician) with that name. So, yes, it is unconventional, and no, thinking so cannot be "easily read as racism."The Tall Nerd said:
Hm, nifty. Sounds like a movie I might enjoy if I go out and see it, though Foxx's "I kill all the white people in the movie, how great is that!?" schtick on SNL was hardly funny. Seemed pretty racists to me, but "judging by the content of someones character" is somehow considered racist today... Though, if you're one ethnicity it's less racist than another somehow.
Anyways. "Americas 'Original Sin'" though... cute... does Movie Bob have any idea wtf he's talking about? Well probably not, from the multiple videos I've watched of him, he's probably the victim of the propaganda that America was somehow unique in it's use of slave labor, some perspective might be had in http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/12/slaverys-global-comeback/266354/ . But that's just a modern dose of slavery, the kind of crap he ignores, and might be a good education... yet counter to the propaganda. But no, apparently history stops 300 years ago. African Tribal leaders own participation in the slave trade up until the outlawing of slave trade in Arabic(*cough* Islamic *cough*) nations coming from eastern African nations in the 1960s is ignored. And even their own current allowance of slavery is ignored. But...
Anyways. "Americas 'Original Sin'" though... cute... does Movie Bob have any idea wtf he's talking about? Well probably not, from the multiple videos I've watched of him, he's probably the victim of the propaganda that America was somehow unique in it's use of slave labor, some perspective might be had in http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/12/slaverys-global-comeback/266354/ . But that's just a modern dose of slavery, the kind of crap he ignores, and might be a good education... yet counter to the propaganda. But no, apparently history stops 300 years ago. African Tribal leaders own participation in the slave trade up until the outlawing of slave trade in Arabic(*cough* Islamic *cough*) nations coming from eastern African nations in the 1960s is ignored. And even their own current allowance of slavery is ignored. But...
I bet it's going to be shit just like Inglourious Basterds was shit. I just don't like historical revenge movies. I get that it's supposed to be satisfying or something to watch the oppressed brutalise their oppressors but it's not. It's just depressing as hell. It's depressing that those people had to suffer through what they did, it's depressing that they're still feeling the ill effects of it today and it's depressing that some shitty revenge movie is supposed to act as some sort of consolation for real life atrocities. It's just stupid. There's no poetic justice in real life and in a strange way even making believe that there was strikes me as disrespectful. You don't get to rewrite history to make it nicer even if you acknowledge that it's fiction.
I admit, I'm not a big fan of Quentin Tarantino. I think he's a guy with good ideas that is in desperate need of an editor or something. He's like a reverse-George Lucas; someone who gets his way, but where George Lucas has awful dialogue and loads of unnecessary CGI, Quentin has too MUCH dialogue and loads of practical effects.
I've never seen a Tarantino movie I fully enjoyed, sadly. Many of his movies have some amazing scenes in there, but every movie is also saddled with long stretches of yawn-inducing, self-indulgent, "witty" dialogue that goes on far longer than should humanly be allowed. That, and I'm not exactly a fan of dialogue mostly consisting of profanities. Even the scenes I like are often directly lifted from other movies and genres.
I can assume Django Unchained is going to be the same thing. Some of my favorite moments in a movie, yet long stretches of self-indulgence, wonderful excuses for Tarantino to throw in ample uses of his favorite curse words, "intentionally" choppy and amateurish camera work to mimic outdated films, 30-40 minute scenes of people sitting down at a table talking about random crap that has no bearing on the plot, and sprinkles of really good action and humor just to keep you thinking the film is worth sitting through the dull parts.
I could be wrong. I haven't seen the film.... but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Some people love that style, but, well, just never did it for me. I find him overrated (not bad, just overrated), but I still might check it out to see if this is the film that finally let Tarantino put his ego in check. But if I get another "look directly at the camera and audience and call your own film a masterpiece" moment, I'll be disappointed.
I've never seen a Tarantino movie I fully enjoyed, sadly. Many of his movies have some amazing scenes in there, but every movie is also saddled with long stretches of yawn-inducing, self-indulgent, "witty" dialogue that goes on far longer than should humanly be allowed. That, and I'm not exactly a fan of dialogue mostly consisting of profanities. Even the scenes I like are often directly lifted from other movies and genres.
I can assume Django Unchained is going to be the same thing. Some of my favorite moments in a movie, yet long stretches of self-indulgence, wonderful excuses for Tarantino to throw in ample uses of his favorite curse words, "intentionally" choppy and amateurish camera work to mimic outdated films, 30-40 minute scenes of people sitting down at a table talking about random crap that has no bearing on the plot, and sprinkles of really good action and humor just to keep you thinking the film is worth sitting through the dull parts.
I could be wrong. I haven't seen the film.... but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Some people love that style, but, well, just never did it for me. I find him overrated (not bad, just overrated), but I still might check it out to see if this is the film that finally let Tarantino put his ego in check. But if I get another "look directly at the camera and audience and call your own film a masterpiece" moment, I'll be disappointed.
Just to get this off my chest: Bane was a much more menacing villain then Loki, I mean come on, Loki was one giant joke to begin with, his character was comically overacted, He was just comic relief at the end, and there was absolutely no tension in the final fight, because the Avengers are going to win no matter what.
Bane not only Beat batman, but Brought Gotham closer to its knees than the Joker ever did, He was much more intriguing than Loki, Seeing as he had a real past. Not just "Oh he was some god born on another planet who's cartoonishly evil" Loki might as well of had a Snidely Whiplash 'stash and worn a black trench coat
Though overall, I dont really have a preference between The Avengers and TDKR, there both good, not great.
-Sorry for the rant there :/
OT:
This....movie.....was...amazing!!
Seriously, QT knows how to write for his actors! Theyre all portrayed so damn well
Cant decide if I hated Candie or Stephen more...
Bane not only Beat batman, but Brought Gotham closer to its knees than the Joker ever did, He was much more intriguing than Loki, Seeing as he had a real past. Not just "Oh he was some god born on another planet who's cartoonishly evil" Loki might as well of had a Snidely Whiplash 'stash and worn a black trench coat
Though overall, I dont really have a preference between The Avengers and TDKR, there both good, not great.
-Sorry for the rant there :/
OT:
This....movie.....was...amazing!!
Seriously, QT knows how to write for his actors! Theyre all portrayed so damn well
Cant decide if I hated Candie or Stephen more...
You know, Bob's interpretation of DiCaprio's villain character actually reminds me of my interpretation of Handsome Jack from Borderlands 2. I know a lot of people gush on about how awesome and hilarious Jack is and he can be very funny- but he's also completely utterly repulsive, a vile monster of the most heartless, sadistic and spiteful kind and my primary motivation to keep playing the game is more than anything the desire to shut that little shit up, kick the crap out of him, ruin everything he cares about and see him die in the most painful way possible. I loathe Jack more than practically any other villain in gaming history and the villain from 'Django' sounds like the same kind of character.
I thought it was hilarious hearing Bob dismiss Bane as 'Mumbles'. I really feel they completely wasted and screwed up the character too. Like, what were they THINKING when they designed that mouthpiece?!
I thought it was hilarious hearing Bob dismiss Bane as 'Mumbles'. I really feel they completely wasted and screwed up the character too. Like, what were they THINKING when they designed that mouthpiece?!
None of them are as bad as Loki, especially in the Avengers where he was more plot device than character.Rogue 09 said:
I love Bane though.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally. But you merely adopted the dark; I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!"
"Calm down, Doctor! Now's not the time for fear. That comes later."
I don't read comics so I don't know exactly what Bane is supposed to be like(other than the fact that he was experimented on in a South American prison and controlled the venom with intense meditation) but I really did like the movie version and especially that he isn't a crazed lunatic doing this for fun like Joker.
Raul Manendez's version of Bane was much much better, however to the point that Black Ops 2 is more a tragedy about him than a heroic story about the main characters. It would could have only be made better if he was a Pakistani whose sister is killed in a drone attack with a drone controlled by Woods. It would give much more weight and context to the scene where he remotely destroys all the drones.
Raul Manendez's version of Bane was much much better, however to the point that Black Ops 2 is more a tragedy about him than a heroic story about the main characters. It would could have only be made better if he was a Pakistani whose sister is killed in a drone attack with a drone controlled by Woods. It would give much more weight and context to the scene where he remotely destroys all the drones.
I actually felt like that "final gun battle" was superfluous and really dragged down the rest of the film for me. it felt like it sort of stripped away the genuine tension the movie had built up to that point and sort of diluted the character depth for me. I realize that the the final bit is pretty much taken straight out of the films this movie is emulating, but it's really what made this very long film feel overly long and dampened my passion for the whole thing.
Aside from that, awesome movie. Totally recommended. Everyone is awesome in it, and that's coming from someone who really isn't a fan of Jamie Foxx (both in and out of the movies).
Aside from that, awesome movie. Totally recommended. Everyone is awesome in it, and that's coming from someone who really isn't a fan of Jamie Foxx (both in and out of the movies).
I honestly have the sneaking suspicion that Loki planned out all that shit from the beginning. His turn as big joke being a ploy to further a grander scheme. I kind of doubt that's the case, but it'd be pretty badass if it was. He is the "god" of mischief after all.Xdeser2 said:
Also, to be fair, it was the FIRST Avengers movie. I doubt they would've made Batman "lose" in his first reboot film, nor would anyone have suspected that he would. What's more, no one actually thought Bane would blow up Gotham either, so I think we all knew Batman would "win" in the end. His potential death was probably the real coin flip.
Yes, it was. RACIST!!!Baresark said:
(I'm agreeing with you through sarcasm.)
It is funny how all "Western" movies these days either have to take place in Australia, or have to take place just after emancipation, that way there is no slavery anymore, so they can't be accused of being insensitive by failing to COMPLETELY FIXATE ON IT.
Loved it as well. Glad we agree.
Now with that out of the way, let me get to the REAL reason I'm commenting.
Because you've been bad and you should feel bad, Bob. Mumbles gets to stay. Bane was great, Tom Hardy played him brilliantly and The Dark Knight Rises was a fantastic movie.
Now with that out of the way, let me get to the REAL reason I'm commenting.
Because you've been bad and you should feel bad, Bob. Mumbles gets to stay. Bane was great, Tom Hardy played him brilliantly and The Dark Knight Rises was a fantastic movie.