Movie Talk (New Films, Old Films... doesn't matter) (51 Viewers)

Ragazza

Calciopoli Director
Jul 22, 2013
5,060
Just thought I'd take this opportunity to tell you all Django Unchained is the most overrated film of all time.
Wow, I thought I was the only one who didn't like it. The acting was great but the story bored me, I kept wondering when it would be over. And I have enjoyed other Tarantino movies so it's not that I don't like his style.

Then again I did watch it while suffering from an epic hangover after one of the most embarrassing nights out of my life, so that could have contributed to my hatred of the film.
 

Nenz

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2008
10,472
Wow, I thought I was the only one who didn't like it. The acting was great but the story bored me, I kept wondering when it would be over. And I have enjoyed other Tarantino movies so it's not that I don't like his style.

Then again I did watch it while suffering from an epic hangover after one of the most embarrassing nights out of my life, so that could have contributed to my hatred of the film.
The acting was the only thing going for it really. You're not wrong, the story was a complete snooze-fest. I'm not exactly a big Tarantino fan but I did appreciate the stories in Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds and Pulp Fiction. As far as I can remember, up until Foxx and Waltz arrive at DiCaprio's manor (where the story really begins) they're just trekking boringly through rural USA with the odd unnecessary monologue and lynching/shoot out to boot.
I hate that Tarantino doesn't like to make his movies believable to the audience. Samuel L. Jackson's character speaks like he grew up in 20th century New York - did words like 'motherfucker' even exist then? After all that goes on, another shootout with stock standard Tarantino violence, the girl dies and the story should effectively be over, right? Because as far as I'm aware the story is about Django and his love for whatsherface. The drawn out, stupid and irrelevant ending pissed me off. Why the fuck has Tarantino's character got an Australian accent??!! The Australian accent barely developed into what we hear in Django until the 1960's. The ending contributes nothing and it goes for like 10 minutes.

All in all the film was boring and the story didn't flow well one bit. Its a really shallow way to make a movie to have next to no story and accompany it with 'cool' Tarantinoisms - meaning things that don't contribute anything to the actual story they just look and sound cool or different. I thought it was an abhorrent excuse for a movie and hearing everyone talk about how good it is was bloody torture.

- - - Updated - - -

embarassing nights?

jeez you're such a girl
#drunkennightswiththegirls
 

Ragazza

Calciopoli Director
Jul 22, 2013
5,060
The acting was the only thing going for it really. You're not wrong, the story was a complete snooze-fest. I'm not exactly a big Tarantino fan but I did appreciate the stories in Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds and Pulp Fiction. As far as I can remember, up until Foxx and Waltz arrive at DiCaprio's manor (where the story really begins) they're just trekking boringly through rural USA with the odd unnecessary monologue and lynching/shoot out to boot.
I hate that Tarantino doesn't like to make his movies believable to the audience. Samuel L. Jackson's character speaks like he grew up in 20th century New York - did words like 'motherfucker' even exist then? After all that goes on, another shootout with stock standard Tarantino violence, the girl dies and the story should effectively be over, right? Because as far as I'm aware the story is about Django and his love for whatsherface. The drawn out, stupid and irrelevant ending pissed me off. Why the fuck has Tarantino's character got an Australian accent??!! The Australian accent barely developed into what we hear in Django until the 1960's. The ending contributes nothing and it goes for like 10 minutes.

All in all the film was boring and the story didn't flow well one bit. Its a really shallow way to make a movie to have next to no story and accompany it with 'cool' Tarantinoisms - meaning things that don't contribute anything to the actual story they just look and sound cool or different. I thought it was an abhorrent excuse for a movie and hearing everyone talk about how good it is was bloody torture.
Yeah, there were a few points in the movie where I was sure it would be the end, but it kept going on. Also, when it first started I thought I was going to be watching a cool movie about bounty hunting, not what was basically a tragic love story with some ultraviolence thrown in for good measure. Meh.

Another thing Tarantino does/did is all the modern day music used, not that the soundtrack itself was bad but it didn't fit with the era. The anachronisms like this aren't really deal breakers for me if it's clear that it was the director's intent to make it that way, rather than poor research (for example, if a movie was supposed to take place in the 1950s, but used 1960s music throughout the whole thing, THAT would bother me). But since you brought others up like the language, it made me think of that.
 
OP
Elvin

Elvin

Senior Member
Nov 25, 2005
36,923
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #14,509
    Tarantino doesn't give a shit about historic accuracy... there is no message in his movies, it's all about entertainment, always. Django is very entertaining.
     

    Ragazza

    Calciopoli Director
    Jul 22, 2013
    5,060
    Tarantino doesn't give a shit about historic accuracy... there is no message in his movies, it's all about entertainment, always. Django is very entertaining.
    Yeah, that's his style, which is why I said it didn't bother me since it's all about intent. I personally disagree about the movie being entertaining, but I agree with your general statement.
     

    TheLaz

    Senior Member
    Oct 6, 2011
    5,540
    Tarantino doesn't give a $#@! about historic accuracy... there is no message in his movies, it's all about entertainment, always. Django is very entertaining.
    Haha! If that was true Tarantino would never had made it as a director.. None would've found meaning in his work
     

    Nzoric

    Grazie Mirko
    Jan 16, 2011
    37,877
    not everything has to be intelectually stimulating, you pretentious hippo :D
    I agree, but everything doesn't have to be actively dumbing down the viewer. The only historically accurate thing about that movie is that there was a battle with the greeks.

    That's about it.

    Furthermore, I don't get why they had to dress all the Spartans up in speedo's and give them weird unrecognisable accents :D

    Also, they could've at least made an effort and left the studio at least once during the entire recording of the film, it's like they were trying to out CGI George Lucas.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 32)