You say that like you are surprised. DiCaprio is an excellent actor.Originally Posted by sooner59
|
|
You say that like you are surprised. DiCaprio is an excellent actor.
2 users like Commodore Okie's post: oucub23, SoonerBeerSnob
The guy can act. Much respect.
I actually think Leo did the best acting job in this movie of great acting.
Can't stand QT. I liked ****s, but that was his only film since Dogs (and maybe Pulp) that I enjoyed. I think he's a hack. Can't stand Foxx either. All that being said, I'm intrigued by this movie but will wait for HBO.
This movie reminded me of ****s. If you liked that, you should like this.
The following users like this post: oucub23
Oh I agree. I was just apprehensive about his role as a slave master. I forget that he is getting older and able to handle roles that are intended for middle aged guys. I like most of he stuff he does.
Can't wait to see this. I still haven't seen The Hobbit yet, so this is on the back burner
Does anyone have a spare hood?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The following users like this post: R3D Mamba
Leo was best in Growing Pains.
The following users like this post: Tug Medick
I know killing them softly is getting trashed by people, but it is a better movie than Django. Django is typical QT bull****. Not bad by any means, but it's bull****.
It was decent. Same old QT stuff, and about an hour too long.
I had two brothers sitting next to me and watching the slaves get beaten and eaten by dogs, and the couple-hundred N bombs made it a little uncomfortable, though they did laugh so I guess it was okay.
6 out of 10 IMO.
Really good movie!
I watched this today at the Warren. I though it was really really good. A little over-long as someone else pointed out, and a little too QT for my taste, but it was a pretty good movie. I too sat next to a black couple, and the n-word *insert reference to Louis CK bit here* got both tiresome and a little uncomfortable. I mean, I realize that that's probably how those people spoke back then, but I'm pretty sure QT embellished a little bit in order to get a point across. Especially with the way the board's been lately, this movie just couldn't have come at a better time.
Things you have to remember going into a QT movie..
-lots of violence/blood
-lots of bad language
-good times
I couldn't determine if it was satire or serious subject matter. Jonah Hill kind of answered that question for me.
Killing them softly was a waste of 2 hours.
Great movie. A little long. Sam Jackson and Leo D. were excellent. Foxx was great to my surprise. Christoph Waltz was awesome. Very bloody, very intense at times, but I imagine that time period was for a slave.
The KKK scene was very funny. Made them look like a bunch of jackasses.
Well worth the money to see it in the theatre IMO.
One can wonder if a spaghetti western with a "Good, bad and the ugly" type of theme, does any justice to black people. What was the purpose of this movie? If it was merely to entertain, then mission accomplished, and good job on using the blood and suffering of slaves to make money (yet again).
Should the KKK be seen in a funny light, as it is hard to hate and take seriously morons. When I saw this movie, the violent images were so burned in my brain that I dreamed violent dreams. That's just how the brain works.
Is it racist to laugh when white people make jokes using the n-word? S. L Jackson did the best acting job. The rest did their typical stuff. Leo was Leo of Inception but with a bad southern accent. Foxx was the usual ****y, handsome, hero Foxx who sticks it to white people. Waltz played the same German character he played in ****s, but in this case he wasn't a racist (you know the odd, intellectual extremely violent unlikely hero or antihero).
I am not even getting into the historical inaccuracies of the movie.
Killing them Softly, though a better movie, does not get the accolades of Django because it requires its audience to think. The biggest fault of Django is that the movie is narrated through a white person's point of view, and is ultimately a movie that is directed at white people's psyche. In reality there were no Djangos in the movie, only Stephens.
Spike Lee? Is that you?
So, I guess you've never ever seen a movie about white people suffering?
I find it difficult to value your movie recommendation or review given that you sound completely stupid in conveying them both.
Saw it & loved it. It was kinda long and extremely violent - I had to cover my eyes (& ears) in a couple of places - but the acting was excellent, it had lots of surprise (to me, at least) people in it, and was very diverse. The KKK scene made me laugh so hard I had tears rolling down my cheeks, the slavery scenes made me actually angry, & my eyes welled up in the scene where the wife was being whipped. My favorite character was the doctor. I'll certainly see it again, but at home here I can ff through a couple of the difficult parts.
The following users like this post: R3D Mamba
I couldn't care less what you value or don't value. You as a mouth breather have the right to be bamboozled by anything you wish. It's your dollar; use it however you see fit.
Last edited by TenYards; 01-01-2013 at 07:06 PM. Reason: Fixed run-on sentence.
In before the Dome.
It’s also a project infatuated with cruelty and degradation, all presented with a cutesy wink-and-a-nod. It wants to be “The Wild Bunch” but has more in common with “I Spit on Your Grave.” Fortunately, Tarantino lays on just enough of his signature flamboyance to keep it watchable.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/24...#storylink=cpy
I think ten yards is is just ripping off other peoples movie reviews and using them as his own.
The following users like this post: soonerbornsoonerbret
Want to see. . .after the drought of the last year, there are so many good films to watch now. . .looks like wil continue through at least this summer.
Is MikeLucky a mouth-breather?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Savages is cool,not too shabby,lots of senseless violence and slaughtering of pot smokers.
Is MikeLucky a mouth-breather?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only when he is all stopped up and has a cold . . .
The following users like this post: MikeLucky
Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that part of it was filmed in/around Jackson Hole. Very cool to see places I know & love.
If I'm a mouth-breather then you are a caveman. Congrats on that...
Oh, and you quite obviously DO care what I value or you wouldn't have responded. Try again scooter.
Saw it tonight....a little delusional like most QT films. No blacks in the theatre and wondered if I would laugh at parts if they were next to me. Overly violent which is expected. Waltz rocked as usual. The way it was shot and score was very, very good. N word I would guess would be around 113 times or so. Problem was a person never picked up a gun before is the best ever, whatever. Really makes you think about how blacks lives in that ****ed up time...disgusting.
The following users like this post: McRib
Pretty much how I feel. I still prefer Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Inglourious ****s, and Kill Bill. But the performances were great all around.
I thought it was alright i guess. I think i gave it to much hype for it to really satisfy me
Saw it yesterday. It was perfect.
The following users like this post: McRib
Really no black people in the theater? Where do you live? When I saw it, the theater was about 50-60% black.
Finally broke down and saw it last night. Sick of football and needed a mind break. Nothing else on.
Typical QT dialogue driven movie with a lot of violence. Worst actor was QT. He is from Knoxville and he couldn't even sound southern.
Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson were great. Foxx was OK.
I thought it was one of QT's better efforts. Not sure why Spike would be mad other than the constant N reference. It brought about some awareness to slavery that we haven't seen in what seems like quite a while. And it had a black hero that "climbed the mountain" against odds.
Spoiler:
Pretty sure QT was attempting an Australian accent.
4 users like Docsooner's post: quatrogenerian, sooner59, Soonerpsycho, thurman murman
Far from his best effort, but still a REALLY good movie from the best in the business(QT).
Good, definitely not ****s, Foxx is a little over the top at times, still a solid movie.
E. It's spelled with an e. No excuses.
Really? You're saying QT is the best director in Hollywood?
"A less violent passion of the christ" hahahah****
Who's better? ****s and Django are two marvelous movies from a guy that has churned out a buncha winners. Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, reservoir dogs, Kill Bill, Deathproof....etc. The man is a great screen writer and producer. Sin City, True Romance, Dusk til Dawn. If he ain't the best? He's damn close to the top.
Fvckin it live via tapatalk dos
I loved it. I sat next to a young white couple, and could tell they were a little afraid to laugh at first. After they saw us laughing, they loosened up....
How anyone could be offended by the movie is beyond me. Not one scene offended me, because it never made light of slavery, IMO. Assaid it even had some Awareness Situations for those ignorant to slavery. I would recommend it to anyone except a black militant looking to get angry......
Mizz I'm not gonna lie, I was uncomfortable. Several African-American couples were around us, and the younger dudes I mentioned (25ish). I was unsure of what to find funny or not. I dont use the word myself, and the only real times I've heard it used in a public setting, someone on either end go their **** kicked. It's like this... I thought the movie was pretty good and pretty funny, I just didnt want my laughter to seem that it was at the expense of that word.I loved it. I sat next to a young white couple, and could tell they were a little afraid to laugh at first. After they saw us laughing, they loosened up....
How anyone could be offended by the movie is beyond me. Not one scene offended me, because it never made light of slavery, IMO. As
I dont know man, like I said, just uncomfortable... and I'm not usually overly-sensitive about **** like that.
The following users like this post: jmizzy4ou
I can understand that. Society has conditioned us so much about what we can and can't like/dislike, we all tend to be overly sensitive, afraid of how we will be perceived by others.
I'm guilty of it at times, as most everyone is. One thing I have learned about racial issues is IF everyone would take off their pre-conceived beliefs, and stop listening to sensationalized reporting, and get to know other cultures for themselves, a lot of the racial tensions would go away, IMO. Ignorance fuels hatred, and hatred fuels racial prejudice.
I can totally see how and why you would feel that way, at the movie.....
I don't know what would have been awkward to laugh at. If it was funny? It was funny, period. At the credits when the black dudes in the cart said "who was that n!gg@?". I cracked up as should anyone. It was funny on a couple of levels.
I'm laughing right now at this discussion. Cause so many apparently saw this film as a comedy I guess. Lol I thought it was a spaghetti western retelling.
Fvckin it live via tapatalk dos
The following users like this post: jmizzy4ou
As if someone who could watch this movie and find it problematic isn't having a valid reaction. It may have had some awareness situations. But it also had a situation which was completely unrealistic. An armed black man sitting at the table of a plantation owner never happened, and would not ever happen. And it's not OK for QT to go and make whatever he wants to out of a setting just because the outcome conforms to the hopes buried in the internalized oppression of a minoritized group. Why didn't they stand up? Anyway, it's bull****. And it's just another example of revision for the sake of popular angst.
Also... You forgot another group of people who don't like this film. Anyone male or female looking for a female character with a single shred of personal agency beyond being a ****ual object. Because there wasn't one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
