Pat's Van
Player Valuation: £70m
will do chief
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter GrandOldTeam
- Start date
will do chief
Footy for me Pat.... sky+ The Voice and watch it when the mrs gets home from work then i'll watch my film.
Pat's Van
Player Valuation: £70m
same I think, iron man is downloaded and ready to roll
let's see what crazy japes Mario B gets up to first
carlos21
KING OF REP
okay mucka.
BlueLlama
10/11/17 TWAIN CRUSH DAY
To be fair the game on ITV4 earleier was better - an absolute belter of a game that finished 4-4 after Pele came off the bench despite having broken ribs and equalised with an over head kick to deny a muscular Germany team a win
Pat's Van
Player Valuation: £70m
yeah it's very good, Sam LJ plays a great part, as does Christoph
bit long though, but worth it
McBain
Player Valuation: £80m
I thought this was a good exchange between IMDB'ers regarding Django.
.... Spoliers if you haven't seen it........
Those 10's couldn't possibly be mostly Tarantino fanboys. Just look at Death Proof and Jackie Brown, do they have ratings as high as the rest of Tarantino's films? No, they don't, because they're not as good as the usual gold he makes (Death Proof was dreadful in my opinion and Jackie Brown was good but not excellent). The difference in the ratings of those films shows that they're not exactly a favorite among the fans and that the scores of all Tarantino films on this site actually reflect the real opinions of the people who see it.
Well I'm not sure I'd agree with that, although their ratings aren't exactly as bloated as Django, I still think they're overrated as films. Plus, both movies came out before it became a "thing" for fanboys to upvote a movie in order to increase its positive reputation.
Take Django. I've recommended this film to over a dozen people and only one or two people were fans of Tarantino. The rest weren't really familiar with his work. Every single person I've recommended this film to loved it. Django is very popular in my country, ask anyone what they thought of it and they'll say how extremely awesome and mind-blowing it is. This shows that people actually like the film, and it isn't Tarantino fanboys pushing up the ratings with 10's.
Well over a dozen people isn't really a large amount, but I don't know what country you're from, nor can I comment on anecdotes.
As for why the movie is great, well, first of all the dialogue. We all know that Tarantino is the king of dialogue and this film is proof of that. The conversations the characters have are witty, very interesting, and well written. You cannot tell me that the skull monologue for example, wasn't awesome.
I agree that the skull monologue certainly was awesome, but as for the rest of the dialogue I only found a few memorable lines scattered around and didn't consider it anywhere near as well written as Tarantino's other films. Using the N word in every other sentence doesn't impress me.
Next is the characters. The characters on either side, good or bad, are very lovable. Not to mention well developed (except Broomhilda). For example, you saw how Django transformed right?
Django's transformation was too sudden in my opinion, he went from an apprehensive slave to a deadly gunman in a thirty second monologue and this jarring transition was then glossed over for the remainder of the movie. There was really only one scene regarding his development that I found remotely engaging and it's where he's reluctant to shoot a man in front of his son, but it's a problem he literally overcomes within minutes and to my recollection he shows little to no hesitation ever again. Tarantino attempts to explain this (admirably) with Django's dialogue about "getting dirty" in order to appeal to Candie's depraved nature, but it all felt completely unnecessary because I was left wondering why Django even needed to be involved at all. It would've gone a lot smoother if he hadn't shown up, and the business had simply been conducted in a straightforward, honest manner between Candie and Schultz.
What about Schultz? He clearly has no problem killing evil people and at some points enjoys it, but we see that he actually has emotions and that they clearly got the better of him, which led to his end.
That's another thing which I considered too abrupt. In fact, Candie actually seemed like the more respectable of the two in that scene despite his evil nature. He was prepared to allow them all to leave when he could've killed them at the drop of a hat, and he made a point about Schultz being a sore loser. Schultz was outsmarted (mostly by the observant Stephens, granted), and he didn't like it, so he refused to shake hands. Candie may have been a racist, sadistic bigot but he was the victim of a scam and yet he still maintained professionalism enough to accept the money, free the slave, and let them walk away. Sure, the hand shake part was likely an attempt to gloat rather than a genuine offer, but he had a right to, they'd attempted to cheat him. Schultz then jeopardized the entire already flawed operation based on his ego, which resulted in me losing respect for the character and caring a lot less when he was suddenly killed other than to feel puzzled at Tarantino's bizarre, last minute 180. One could make an argument that Tarantino was conveying to the audience that Schultz was ultimately human and prone to provocation, thus developing his character, but I had little time to process it due to the seemingly impetuous decision to kill him off, and it left me cold. In retrospect, it seems more like another Scorsese-esque attempt to shock the audience by killing two important characters out of the blue.
Stephen first appears as a regular Uncle Tom but then we find out that he's actually more evil than Candie. A slave, who hates his own race so much, and turns out to be more inhumane than the owner of one of the most violent plantations in Mississippi.
Stephens as played by Jackson was, as I mentioned, great, but he too wasn't very developed. I don't recall them ever delving into exactly why he hated his own race so much, and why he had become so attached to Candie as to be devastated by his death. It started out promising, but by the end he had become the final boss of a video game, reduced to a punchline when Django kneecaps him.
Calvin Candie. We already know that Candie is absolutely vile from the very beginning, but you get to see different sides of his character with that charm of his. His slaughtering of D'Artagnan and that skull monologue of his really brought out his true character, an evil one who even justifies his inhumane treatment of blacks with pseudoscience.
This I do agree with, but much like Schultz, Candie was killed off too early. Without those two major characters the movie suffered a great deal and it squandered a lot of potential in my opinion.
Acting. Everyone played their role to absolute perfection. You can't have these amazing characters come to life without good actors.
The acting was good, yes, but I don't agree that the characters were "amazing".
The story was really nice and flowed at a very good pace, in my opinion of course.
While I agree that the pacing flowed well, the story was deeply flawed. We're supposed to root for Django saving his wife considering the entire plot hinges upon that, and yet their relationship is never explored so we're left wondering why we should care. The Mandingo angle made no sense to me, so the whole time it affected my suspension of disbelief and I couldn't help but think the entire situation could've been handled much easier and swifter.
This film was able explore slavery, while at the same time retaining the signature style and humor that Tarantino is known and loved for.
The problem to me was that they didn't mix very well, much like the soundtrack didn't fit. Slavery just isn't a funny topic, so approaching it from that direction was a rather strange decision. The scene with the KKK (or what was about to become the KKK) where they debate about the eyeholes in their hoods gave me a chuckle, but it dragged on too long and came off as ultimately forced. It would've worked better as a couple of brief lines, not a whole scene.
To top it all off it's just so entertaining. Those 2 hours and 45 minutes really were the fastest of my life.
It does have entertainment value, yes, but on the level of Tarantino's previous films? Not from my perspective, especially when compared to the likes of Kill Bill which also has a revenge theme. Tarantino had a similarly ambitious approach with KB, adopting various different styles (even including an anime portion), but it actually worked and almost all of his decisions added to the movie in some way. With Django, they mostly fell flat for me.
.... Spoliers if you haven't seen it........
Those 10's couldn't possibly be mostly Tarantino fanboys. Just look at Death Proof and Jackie Brown, do they have ratings as high as the rest of Tarantino's films? No, they don't, because they're not as good as the usual gold he makes (Death Proof was dreadful in my opinion and Jackie Brown was good but not excellent). The difference in the ratings of those films shows that they're not exactly a favorite among the fans and that the scores of all Tarantino films on this site actually reflect the real opinions of the people who see it.
Well I'm not sure I'd agree with that, although their ratings aren't exactly as bloated as Django, I still think they're overrated as films. Plus, both movies came out before it became a "thing" for fanboys to upvote a movie in order to increase its positive reputation.
Take Django. I've recommended this film to over a dozen people and only one or two people were fans of Tarantino. The rest weren't really familiar with his work. Every single person I've recommended this film to loved it. Django is very popular in my country, ask anyone what they thought of it and they'll say how extremely awesome and mind-blowing it is. This shows that people actually like the film, and it isn't Tarantino fanboys pushing up the ratings with 10's.
Well over a dozen people isn't really a large amount, but I don't know what country you're from, nor can I comment on anecdotes.
As for why the movie is great, well, first of all the dialogue. We all know that Tarantino is the king of dialogue and this film is proof of that. The conversations the characters have are witty, very interesting, and well written. You cannot tell me that the skull monologue for example, wasn't awesome.
I agree that the skull monologue certainly was awesome, but as for the rest of the dialogue I only found a few memorable lines scattered around and didn't consider it anywhere near as well written as Tarantino's other films. Using the N word in every other sentence doesn't impress me.
Next is the characters. The characters on either side, good or bad, are very lovable. Not to mention well developed (except Broomhilda). For example, you saw how Django transformed right?
Django's transformation was too sudden in my opinion, he went from an apprehensive slave to a deadly gunman in a thirty second monologue and this jarring transition was then glossed over for the remainder of the movie. There was really only one scene regarding his development that I found remotely engaging and it's where he's reluctant to shoot a man in front of his son, but it's a problem he literally overcomes within minutes and to my recollection he shows little to no hesitation ever again. Tarantino attempts to explain this (admirably) with Django's dialogue about "getting dirty" in order to appeal to Candie's depraved nature, but it all felt completely unnecessary because I was left wondering why Django even needed to be involved at all. It would've gone a lot smoother if he hadn't shown up, and the business had simply been conducted in a straightforward, honest manner between Candie and Schultz.
What about Schultz? He clearly has no problem killing evil people and at some points enjoys it, but we see that he actually has emotions and that they clearly got the better of him, which led to his end.
That's another thing which I considered too abrupt. In fact, Candie actually seemed like the more respectable of the two in that scene despite his evil nature. He was prepared to allow them all to leave when he could've killed them at the drop of a hat, and he made a point about Schultz being a sore loser. Schultz was outsmarted (mostly by the observant Stephens, granted), and he didn't like it, so he refused to shake hands. Candie may have been a racist, sadistic bigot but he was the victim of a scam and yet he still maintained professionalism enough to accept the money, free the slave, and let them walk away. Sure, the hand shake part was likely an attempt to gloat rather than a genuine offer, but he had a right to, they'd attempted to cheat him. Schultz then jeopardized the entire already flawed operation based on his ego, which resulted in me losing respect for the character and caring a lot less when he was suddenly killed other than to feel puzzled at Tarantino's bizarre, last minute 180. One could make an argument that Tarantino was conveying to the audience that Schultz was ultimately human and prone to provocation, thus developing his character, but I had little time to process it due to the seemingly impetuous decision to kill him off, and it left me cold. In retrospect, it seems more like another Scorsese-esque attempt to shock the audience by killing two important characters out of the blue.
Stephen first appears as a regular Uncle Tom but then we find out that he's actually more evil than Candie. A slave, who hates his own race so much, and turns out to be more inhumane than the owner of one of the most violent plantations in Mississippi.
Stephens as played by Jackson was, as I mentioned, great, but he too wasn't very developed. I don't recall them ever delving into exactly why he hated his own race so much, and why he had become so attached to Candie as to be devastated by his death. It started out promising, but by the end he had become the final boss of a video game, reduced to a punchline when Django kneecaps him.
Calvin Candie. We already know that Candie is absolutely vile from the very beginning, but you get to see different sides of his character with that charm of his. His slaughtering of D'Artagnan and that skull monologue of his really brought out his true character, an evil one who even justifies his inhumane treatment of blacks with pseudoscience.
This I do agree with, but much like Schultz, Candie was killed off too early. Without those two major characters the movie suffered a great deal and it squandered a lot of potential in my opinion.
Acting. Everyone played their role to absolute perfection. You can't have these amazing characters come to life without good actors.
The acting was good, yes, but I don't agree that the characters were "amazing".
The story was really nice and flowed at a very good pace, in my opinion of course.
While I agree that the pacing flowed well, the story was deeply flawed. We're supposed to root for Django saving his wife considering the entire plot hinges upon that, and yet their relationship is never explored so we're left wondering why we should care. The Mandingo angle made no sense to me, so the whole time it affected my suspension of disbelief and I couldn't help but think the entire situation could've been handled much easier and swifter.
This film was able explore slavery, while at the same time retaining the signature style and humor that Tarantino is known and loved for.
The problem to me was that they didn't mix very well, much like the soundtrack didn't fit. Slavery just isn't a funny topic, so approaching it from that direction was a rather strange decision. The scene with the KKK (or what was about to become the KKK) where they debate about the eyeholes in their hoods gave me a chuckle, but it dragged on too long and came off as ultimately forced. It would've worked better as a couple of brief lines, not a whole scene.
To top it all off it's just so entertaining. Those 2 hours and 45 minutes really were the fastest of my life.
It does have entertainment value, yes, but on the level of Tarantino's previous films? Not from my perspective, especially when compared to the likes of Kill Bill which also has a revenge theme. Tarantino had a similarly ambitious approach with KB, adopting various different styles (even including an anime portion), but it actually worked and almost all of his decisions added to the movie in some way. With Django, they mostly fell flat for me.
orly
Please check with me for Blammo criteria
Really enjoyed that post McBain, you clearly know your films, have some rep sir.
I thought killing off two major characters as he did was a pretty brave decision that changed the direction of the film, it was an interesting way to go.
I like the Kill Bill comparisons, absolutely loved that movie and I think revenge was done much better in that. I actually thought the anime part was poorly done, "oh she's a bit Japanese lets do some anime to go along with the rest" and not really done in a similar style to modern anime at all.
For me it's Django > PF > KB for sheer enjoyment purposes, but can see where you are coming from
I thought killing off two major characters as he did was a pretty brave decision that changed the direction of the film, it was an interesting way to go.
I like the Kill Bill comparisons, absolutely loved that movie and I think revenge was done much better in that. I actually thought the anime part was poorly done, "oh she's a bit Japanese lets do some anime to go along with the rest" and not really done in a similar style to modern anime at all.
For me it's Django > PF > KB for sheer enjoyment purposes, but can see where you are coming from
McBain
Player Valuation: £80m
Thanks mate, and just because I live and breathe Films most of the time doesn't mean I'm right by any stretch. I'd probably put my dislike of the Django down to growing up with Tarantino (I would have been 16 when Pulp came out - sneaking into the pictures to watch it) and expecting more. Expecting something better. Revolutionising a genre rather than exploiting it.
Jackie Brown was a big disappointment to most at the time it came out because it was Tarantino meets Elmore Leonard, the respective epitomes of Cool. I was just as disappointed in the Cinema at the time. But now, on reflection, I enjoy it. But growing up watching his films, It's the realisation that people like Tarantino cannot help but fundamentally influenced by the things that are in their lives. Once a struggling artist working out of a Video Shop; Next the best Filmmaker of his generation rolling in the Benjamins and being deified across the Globe. For the record I loved Death Proof. It was Tarantino harking back to the films that he grew up watching. It was real, it was gritty. You could see the Camera shake and the hair in the Gate of the Camera. His films have always reflected his persona, but he was right there, behind the camera. The Car was like another Character. And yet I don't think he's made anything really good since the Kill Bills.
Inglorious was a complete farce. And it started off so brilliantly. It was like he had formulated the opening scene years before without quite working out how the rest of the film would play out. I was really looking forward to Django. But once again the execution of the Film far outweighs its concept. And I heard it was written for Will Smith, rather than Foxx.
Next up : Kill Bill Vol 3 according to the Web.
Rugby Toffee
Player Valuation: £60m
Shadow Dancer - expected more and was left a tad disappointed.
orly
Please check with me for Blammo criteria
Death Proof, now there was a film that polarised opinions. Inglorious was so disappointing I'd forgotten it until you mentioned it again there.
If Will Smith had got that role, I do believe I'd be sitting here nodding in total agreement with you - would have been dreadful. G t to say I thought Di Caprio was an inspired choice as Candie, and even though I'm not a Foxx fan at all I thought he was pretty good.
Vol. 3 you say?whats the premise? Building on from the bit in the first film where she says to the black woman's daughter to find her if she wants to take revenge? Or a new arc altogether?
Baines' left foot
Player Valuation: £90m
Just been thinking, I think I've watched less than 5 films this year with the only one that I can remember being The Hangover Part 3, which was very average.
I drunkenly acquired some films last night.
A Good Day to Diehard.
Looper.
Last Passenger.
Interesting.
Just watched Hanna and realised right near the end that I'd already seen it. Still, I so, so would.
A Good Day to Diehard.
Looper.
Last Passenger.
Interesting.
Just watched Hanna and realised right near the end that I'd already seen it. Still, I so, so would.