Django Unchained

5

HedilioMar 11, 2013

I think that people tend to give into the hype of a movie just because of who the director is. I thought it was a decent movie, but it has a low of flaws. My biggest problem with it is that for a film that's supposed to be about fighting forI think that people tend to give into the hype of a movie just because of who the director is. I thought it was a decent movie, but it has a low of flaws. My biggest problem with it is that for a film that's supposed to be about fighting for love, it seemed to be pretty absent as a theme. Also, it's supposed to be a sad story, but it turns into some sort of farce halfway through. I left entertained, but confused.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Morgenstern72Apr 20, 2013

I was once a real Tarantino fan. He reinvented old style movies and it
was fun and well made. Problem is, that's all he can do (or is wanting
to show). His movies got weaker and weaker and even fans could only reply to critic with "It isI was once a real Tarantino fan. He reinvented old style movies and it
was fun and well made. Problem is, that's all he can do (or is wanting
to show). His movies got weaker and weaker and even fans could only
reply to critic with "It is intentionally bad! It just makes fun of old
movies."

Same with this one. Most funny thing her is, that very young people are
talking like this. People that never have seen an Italian western
before but now defend this movie as an obeisance, a critical
examination or an ironic view. It feels just like Tarantino has thrown
some episodes together and found no way to combine them. Acting is
really bad (yes yes, it's for sure intentionally bad like everything in
this movie) except of Jamie Foxx and Leonardo Di Caprio and. Which is
kind of funny, because normally I can't stand him and like Christoph
Waltz. But Waltz' character was most times completely overacted like in
some school play. Tarantions own small role stood out in relation to
the rest: like a completely talent less actor. Man, do I miss the
Tarantino of "From Dusk till Dawn" or "Pulp Fiction"...

So: Story is a mess, acting is crap... what is there else to say? Well.
The music score is a mixture of cinematic themes, pop music and hip
hop. Does not fit as good as anywhere in the movie. Cutting was a mess
too. Some cuts where extremely hard and just done badly.

Only cam was quite good, there were some really nice pictures. And the
overall theme of slavery and how everyone took their side in this dark
times (yes, even the white "missus" did take their role of shame) let
me give a 6.

This movie is neither a obeisance to the old Italien western nor is it
a critical examination nor an ironic view. It's just took some elements
and mixed them up quite bad. If it really was intentional it does not
make a better movie. It's like making a gross hamburger to make fun of
fast food and then expecting people to eat it with pleasure. Which will
be done by all the Tarantino fans out there. No matter how bad their
idol cooks, how bad the burger tastes or how messy it looks: they will
love it because it's made by their idol. For the rest of us: good there
are much better restaurants our there. Including the old traditional
Italian Pizzeria where you can get a real "Django" if you want to.
Without any erupting blood fountains, they are nowhere to be seen in
this movie from 1966.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

yosemiteJan 13, 2016

Change the name of Tarantino's new movie to the Hateful 9 because I also hated it. Looking to give him a fresh look, I watched Django Unchained on Netflix. Better than Hateful 8…but not by much. QT has psychological hang ups;Change the name of Tarantino's new movie to the Hateful 9 because I also hated it. Looking to give him a fresh look, I watched Django Unchained on Netflix. Better than Hateful 8…but not by much. QT has psychological hang ups; African-Americans and the history of blacks , the word **** and Samuel Jackson. The latter is a really good actor but really .. every film ? As always , DiCaprio is a treasure. Bad,bad man. Deliciously played. The acting overall was solid as was the story line but the problem is QT excess and self indulgence. Since Pulp Fiction , the first 1/3 of his movies are really good, often comical , the middle 1/3 o.k. and the last part excessively violent and senseless. My new slogan is "just say no to Tarantino" .… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

ForgeJan 18, 2013

SPOILERS!!! It's fun the first half hour: Django and the Dr. meet and kill the 3 brothers. After that, it's a long and boring movie with two violence scenes so extreme that made me ill. It's overly long, Cristoph Waltz plays the sameSPOILERS!!! It's fun the first half hour: Django and the Dr. meet and kill the 3 brothers. After that, it's a long and boring movie with two violence scenes so extreme that made me ill. It's overly long, Cristoph Waltz plays the same character (now good) from Inglorious Basterds, though it's the only thing that's worth paying attention to after the initial 30 minutes. After he dies, the movie looses any positive aspects. I forget to mention Samuel Jackson's character, which is very entertaining, especially at the last scene. But overall, I never want to see this again.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

dullurdDec 26, 2012

I dearly love Tarantino. I love Inglourious Basterds (and Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs, and I'd give all his other films, including Death Proof, at least an 8). But I found this one really disappointing. The key element missing for me wasI dearly love Tarantino. I love Inglourious Basterds (and Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs, and I'd give all his other films, including Death Proof, at least an 8). But I found this one really disappointing. The key element missing for me was quality QT dialogue. There are very few memorable conversations in this. Whereas Pulp Fiction/Inglourious Basterds, two of my favorite movies of all time, were full of brilliant oddball unconventional wisdom and clever turns of phrase, I can't remember a single good line from Django, and I just saw it an hour ago. Much of the humor is hackneyed, much of the attempts at insight are banal.

Furthermore the weak dialogue caused me not to care about the characters, and the climactic scene is troublingly forced and unemotional. Really hoping this is just a blip for QT and not a harbinger of his subsequent work.… Expand

7 of 21 users found this helpful714

All this user's reviews

4

TantricSkyJan 10, 2013

More palatable than most of Tanantino's works. He's extremely overrated- the only film of his that I really enjoyed was "Jackie Browne." His love of the tacky B-movie genre is thin camouflage for a distubingly deep, annoyingly chatty sadism.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

crazyspacemanJan 4, 2013

While I was extremely excited to see Tarantino's take on a Spaghetti Western Slave Revenge story, the results were mixed. It wasn't what any of us expected.

The first sequences was humorous, but failed to capture Tarantino's aim atWhile I was extremely excited to see Tarantino's take on a Spaghetti Western Slave Revenge story, the results were mixed. It wasn't what any of us expected.

The first sequences was humorous, but failed to capture Tarantino's aim at creating tension - a theme that would plague the film for much of its nearly three hour gargantuan running time. When the dialogue crackled, his intentional quick zooms dampened the mood. When the action was sharp, his intention to add humor ruined the shock value.

Where characters and dialogue are usually his strong point, Tarantino instead seemed to be going for laughs by using the N word in every possible way. Amusing for awhile, but it wore off at the 2/3 mark.

The film couldn't have been cast better - From Waltz and Foxx through every antagonist and bit part - special marks for Don Johnson who was both a charming southern gentlemen and an angry racist in every other sentence. Di Caprio nailed his role, which in a movie of overacting, seemed to be nuanced in the best ways possible.

A day later, I still don't know if Samuel L Jackson stole the show or ruined it. His performance was uneven, but carried the 3rd act.

If Tarantino continues to make his brand of genre pics, I will watch them, as he clearly enjoys making movies as much as we like watching them. But he's a victim of Inglorious' critical success, as a good 25-30 minutes could have been cut out of this film and made it even stronger.… Expand

3 of 11 users found this helpful38

All this user's reviews

4

phillytomDec 31, 2012

It actually has a story line for about half the movie, then it becomes an unbelievable "shoot-em-up". If you don't mind the "gansta rap", the unnecessary filthy language, and the almost silly violence scenes, then go see it. Tarantino hasIt actually has a story line for about half the movie, then it becomes an unbelievable "shoot-em-up". If you don't mind the "gansta rap", the unnecessary filthy language, and the almost silly violence scenes, then go see it. Tarantino has such a gift for movie making, and yet, it seem he feels an obligation to take the violence "over the top".… Expand

9 of 24 users found this helpful915

All this user's reviews

4

ericaquaintDec 25, 2012

I loved "Inglourios Basterds", but I have to say, this movie was so...predictable. This is the first Tarantino film where his formula becomes obvious, and unfortunately, it's not to his credit. There were very few surprises, the humor wasI loved "Inglourios Basterds", but I have to say, this movie was so...predictable. This is the first Tarantino film where his formula becomes obvious, and unfortunately, it's not to his credit. There were very few surprises, the humor was weaker than usual, and yeah, the soundtrack was fun, but also kind of obnoxious. What was lacking was the sheer creativity I've come to expect from QT.
Also, it must be said, Jaimie Foxx just doesn't cut it -- his was the least interesting character in a movie named after him.
By no means was this awful -- the cinematography was gorgeous, the setting was intriguing, and the historical sweep was fun. But wtf is up with having to say the cinematography was good after a QT film! That's not why anyone is supposed to like this. Overall: weak sauce.… Expand

16 of 51 users found this helpful1635

All this user's reviews

4

natashJan 3, 2013

As I was expecting from Tarantino, movie was stuffed with much of a violence and beautiful expressive scenes . The story seemed intriguing at the beginning, but soon became too primitive, one-minded, good-guy-VS-bad-guy predictableAs I was expecting from Tarantino, movie was stuffed with much of a violence and beautiful expressive scenes . The story seemed intriguing at the beginning, but soon became too primitive, one-minded, good-guy-VS-bad-guy predictable fantasy-land. In a way it generates audience hate emotions and tension from the struggle scenes, similar to Quentin's "Inglourious Basterds." Even though this movie was neatly shot and acting was quiet good, I found cinema hours long and boring. It reminded me another simple-minded movie "Obsessed" (Starring Beyonce)… Expand

3 of 9 users found this helpful36

All this user's reviews

4

alexandreasFeb 4, 2013

To me this is Tarantino's weakest effort yet. The film is funny at times, but does not manage to sustain interest throughout. It lasts for almost 3(!) hours, which is far too long with a plot as thin as this.

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

4

CarribeanDeanFeb 23, 2013

Skip this bloated turd and do your self a favor: watch the amazing 1966 Django. The days of Quentin Tarantino being cool as a film maker are way over. He needs to be the new Siskel Ebert, that would be awesome.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

fogzaMay 27, 2013

Sort of a mix between Inglorious Basterds and Kill Bill 1, with the worst aspects of both. It's overlong as with IB, and filled with silly action set pieces as in KB. Very stylish, pretty short on anything else. Leo steals the show; you can'tSort of a mix between Inglorious Basterds and Kill Bill 1, with the worst aspects of both. It's overlong as with IB, and filled with silly action set pieces as in KB. Very stylish, pretty short on anything else. Leo steals the show; you can't buy any of the other characters or their motivations. People will try to tell you it's a homage to blaxploitation movies or brilliant satire cloaked in b-grade trapping, or any of the normal stuff people say about Tarantino movies. The truth is, it's just a silly movie that lacks the wit of his earliest films.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

OstrichDec 28, 2012

I loved Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc. they are truly classics, but Django just did not do it for me. From the very first scenes I had a hard time getting immersed in the movie. Christoph Waltz accent throughout the movieI loved Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc. they are truly classics, but Django just did not do it for me. From the very first scenes I had a hard time getting immersed in the movie. Christoph Waltz accent throughout the movie seemed weird and out of place (in a western). There was much more "comedy" than in other Tarantino movies, but unfortunately it was pretty stupid and not funny. Tarantino usually has some phenomenal music scores up his sleeve, but in Django it felt really poorly done. The dialogue wasn't very good, and really the whole movie felt really implausible throughout (I know its a movie - but why is everyone so incredibly dumb?) I was looking forward to this movie, and I liked the concept, but it never drew me in.… Expand

9 of 32 users found this helpful923

All this user's reviews

3

SpankyApr 21, 2013

Definitely, Taranatino's worst movie to date. Hokey and absurd in many places. Ridiculous violence in others. Come on Quentin, is this supposed to be a comedy or a serious film? And when are you going to stop putting yourself in yourDefinitely, Taranatino's worst movie to date. Hokey and absurd in many places. Ridiculous violence in others. Come on Quentin, is this supposed to be a comedy or a serious film? And when are you going to stop putting yourself in your movies? I hate to break it to you, buddy, but you just can't act and you always bring the film down to a lower level when you're on-screen. I believe it's gotten to the point where you're believing your own press and feel anything you put out there is going to be accepted as brilliant by your legion of followers....and, unfortunately, based on some of the reviews I have been reading, this still seems to be true. How sad. P. S. I didn't include specifics because I didn't want to spoil the film for those still wanting to see it. Suffice to say, there are way too many holes in this script to be consider anything other than a B-movie by an A screenwriter and director.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

3

OsborneLVJan 13, 2013

The movie is too damned long, Im a big time fan of most of Quentin's films but he has passed his prime sadly, first with inglorious basterds, and now this. It's a shame, the movie should of ended about 45 minutes before it did, I wanted soThe movie is too damned long, Im a big time fan of most of Quentin's films but he has passed his prime sadly, first with inglorious basterds, and now this. It's a shame, the movie should of ended about 45 minutes before it did, I wanted so bad to leave the theater. don't get me wrong the movie had great moments, but the editing of it was poor, for the last 30+ minutes all I could think was when is this thing going to be over - sadly a great movie turned irritating and left me pissed off by the time the credits rolled. everyone else left the theater in the same mindset. This should of been a director's cut, not a theater production, seems like Quentin went outta his way to put him self in the movie and add as much scenes as possible that were simply not needed.… Expand

2 of 9 users found this helpful27

All this user's reviews

3

EludiumQ36May 11, 2013

The genres listed for this film are: Action, Adventure, Drama, Crime, Western. Wrong on adventure and wrong on crime (yes, lots of criminal acts but it's not about crime/solving crime), and it should include: parody and satire. TarantinoThe genres listed for this film are: Action, Adventure, Drama, Crime, Western. Wrong on adventure and wrong on crime (yes, lots of criminal acts but it's not about crime/solving crime), and it should include: parody and satire. Tarantino definitely has a signature method of directing but it always seems juvenile, never maturing. I recognize alot of people dig his films and that's fine but I can't recommend them for their shallow, excessive violence and shallow caricature characters.… Expand

3 of 9 users found this helpful36

All this user's reviews

3

analogkid280Dec 27, 2012

Too much use of the N word in this movie. Believe it or not people back then did have a vocabulary of more than 12 words. Also not every sentence began and ended with the N word like it does today in the rap music business. The shootout withToo much use of the N word in this movie. Believe it or not people back then did have a vocabulary of more than 12 words. Also not every sentence began and ended with the N word like it does today in the rap music business. The shootout with James Brown in the background took me out of the moment in this supposed western.… Expand

3 of 25 users found this helpful322

All this user's reviews

3

PeikkonaamaFeb 15, 2013

For those who are not QT-believers, Django offers rather dull and tiresome movie with few entertaining moments. See for yourselves on DVD, since in theatre where you must sit still you will just get bored. Curious though, I do not loseFor those who are not QT-believers, Django offers rather dull and tiresome movie with few entertaining moments. See for yourselves on DVD, since in theatre where you must sit still you will just get bored. Curious though, I do not lose attention easily. Enjoyed Hobit and many other lenghty movies, but Django just caused nausea.… Expand

1 of 7 users found this helpful16

All this user's reviews

3

shooterdudeJan 11, 2013

This movie will appeal to the ones who delight in certain types killing other types they really don't like but can not easily convey their dislike. Very predictable and mostly boring. The overall tenet of this sorry excuse for a movie isThis movie will appeal to the ones who delight in certain types killing other types they really don't like but can not easily convey their dislike. Very predictable and mostly boring. The overall tenet of this sorry excuse for a movie is highly unlikely to even be remotely considered possible...unless you are a very vindictive and unskilled entity. I found it to be a waste of time and do not recommend it to anyone with even a modicum of sensibility. If you are of that ilk, you will be angered or saddened...or both.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

3

madeleineJan 11, 2013

Tackles the issue of race relations before the American Civil War more honestly than most recent Westerns, but the violence is too graphic - unwatchable or tedious - and with very little of the usual Tarantino characterisation, it's aTackles the issue of race relations before the American Civil War more honestly than most recent Westerns, but the violence is too graphic - unwatchable or tedious - and with very little of the usual Tarantino characterisation, it's a disappointment. Most of the characters are pure pastiche and the plot is nonsense. Just like 'Kill Bill' this feels like a project that QT was too in love with to handle successfully, ending up feeling more racist than otherwise to me. Not because of the 'n-word' count, but because apart from Jackson's excellent Jim Crow figure, all the other black characters are faceless and it seems as if only the ubermensch Django has any spirit (and that a psychotic one).… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

3

ExKingMay 18, 2013

this movie is a Mandingo ripoff which is a movie done in the 1975 but when Quentin Tarantino
decided to re-circle the story and cash it on the fans well guess what a critically acclaimed movie.
and it's 2012 for crying out loud why we havethis movie is a Mandingo ripoff which is a movie done in the 1975 but when Quentin Tarantino
decided to re-circle the story and cash it on the fans well guess what a critically acclaimed movie.
and it's 2012 for crying out loud why we have movies about racism any more i thought we left that river dry.
it's not entertaining at all neither can be taking seriously. overall another disgusting movie by this stupid director.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

3

GRavidApr 1, 2013

The 1st thing that strikes me when the credits finally rolled was: "Oh my god, the trailer was so much better!" The 2nd thing was a very depressing thought: The film has no story structure. Christ, this is the man who wrote Reservoir Dogs,The 1st thing that strikes me when the credits finally rolled was: "Oh my god, the trailer was so much better!" The 2nd thing was a very depressing thought: The film has no story structure. Christ, this is the man who wrote Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, True Romance. What the hell went wrong? And finally, when DiCaprio gives you the best performance in the film you are in a world of trouble.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

2

andytimberJan 18, 2013

Soooo boring and predictable. It feels like some retarded film student saw "Inglorious Basterds" and thought to himself: Hey, wouldn't it be sooo damn cool to do the same movie in a Wild West setting with like more swearing, more blood andSoooo boring and predictable. It feels like some retarded film student saw "Inglorious Basterds" and thought to himself: Hey, wouldn't it be sooo damn cool to do the same movie in a Wild West setting with like more swearing, more blood and more slposions?? Unbfortunately that retard is QT. 2 points for Leo's acting, he delivers a confident & convincing performance as usual… Expand

1 of 7 users found this helpful16

All this user's reviews

2

CrimsonFlushAug 4, 2019

One of Tarrantino's worst movies, might as well been a remake of Will Smith in Wild, Wild, West.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

2

BonitaJan 25, 2013

It's ridiculously bloody, lacks of sensibility and courage to boldly tell a story without his Tarantino's style. Would Tarantino dare to make a film without bloody deaths and sinful torture. It's a torture itself the film. Are we supposed toIt's ridiculously bloody, lacks of sensibility and courage to boldly tell a story without his Tarantino's style. Would Tarantino dare to make a film without bloody deaths and sinful torture. It's a torture itself the film. Are we supposed to be entertained or disgusted, nauseated and bored.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

2

greygooseMay 22, 2013

The disappointing moment when I realize that Tarantino sadism served up as style.
This man loves ultra violence in film.

I've loved his movies up until this one. I think he went too far this time.

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

2

MaxPayneIsGodNov 5, 2019

Yeeeeeah, pretty mediocre to be honest. Its more Tarantino drivel. I honestly cannot think of a scene memorable for any reason other than gratuitous violence.
Its like the screenplay was just an excuse to see how many times Tarantino couldYeeeeeah, pretty mediocre to be honest. Its more Tarantino drivel. I honestly cannot think of a scene memorable for any reason other than gratuitous violence.
Its like the screenplay was just an excuse to see how many times Tarantino could use the "N" word in a movie script all with Samuel L Jackson's blessing. . .
As per Inglorious Basterds the only redeeming feature is Christoph Waltz who absolutely shines.
Other than that, its way too long recommended for only the most die-hard Tarantino fan boys… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

baddoggieMar 29, 2015

This a pornographic roll in the gutter full of blood and guts. You will be thrilled by the music, cinematography, acting and sets, but really it says more about the state of mind of a society that thinks a spray of viscera is entertaining. IThis a pornographic roll in the gutter full of blood and guts. You will be thrilled by the music, cinematography, acting and sets, but really it says more about the state of mind of a society that thinks a spray of viscera is entertaining. I got a few laughs but it really is a page torn from a comic and at times seems to play with the viewer as if to say, "You, stupid viewer are a patsy." The characters are stereotypes x 10. Enjoy your Tarantino, I mean your battlefield porn.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

2

EstheteDec 9, 2018

Good acting by Leo DiCaprio & Samuel Jackson. In all other respects, this is Tarantino’s worst movie.

19 of 26 users found this helpful197

All this user's reviews

1

DudefromTulsaDec 25, 2012

The thrill is gone. Tarantino leapt to center stage of American film making with Reservoir Dogs and cemented his reputation with Pulp Fiction, but it's time to face facts; sometimes there's two flashes in the pan before it's over. Tarantino,The thrill is gone. Tarantino leapt to center stage of American film making with Reservoir Dogs and cemented his reputation with Pulp Fiction, but it's time to face facts; sometimes there's two flashes in the pan before it's over. Tarantino, like Coppola, Cameron and Lucas, has lost his creative edge. Viewing a Tarantino film, one must expect violence by the ton and language that would make David Mamet wince. But, unlike the grievously over-rated Mamet, one also expects Tarantino's wit. The only humor here is a rip on Blazing Saddles with the overused racial epithet. I'm not a fool. I'm not expecting this review will stop anyone from wasting their money on this thing. I'm not expecting anyone to wake up to Tarantino's failings because I point them out. The NYC film critics love him as do the majority of those posting on this site. But, personally, I think you should wait to rent this thing or, better yet, pass it up entirely.… Expand

21 of 96 users found this helpful2175

All this user's reviews

1

OrctownorcMar 31, 2013

Creatively LAZY, uninventive, poorly edited, over-long. This film is BAD all over. Any hope you have for it at the start ebbs away at a faster and faster pace as it drags on to its pathetic, cliched, gory conclusion. Why is this directorCreatively LAZY, uninventive, poorly edited, over-long. This film is BAD all over. Any hope you have for it at the start ebbs away at a faster and faster pace as it drags on to its pathetic, cliched, gory conclusion. Why is this director renowned? The cinematography is lame and forgettable. Not a single scene or sequence of editing expresses anything of value. Tarantino is a dreadful director of acting. All the performances are bad in this film, and his own cameo is squirm-inspiringly dreadful. The writing is also lame, and it beggars belief that this was given an academy award. All it has in it is the repeated central scene using foreign language, like QT is trying to impress his continental buddies with how hip he is, and then covering itself for the bad script with gratuitous violence of the use-till its BORING Tarantino's use of violence is also weak. In this movie death is used as a comedy prop. When it fails to be funny, it just makes the audience feel naseous. Rather than direct our ill-will towards the supposed 'bad-guys' of the story its likely to lead to our hatred for the script writer: QT himself. I guess there are some giggles to be had laughing at the caricatures of southern American stereotypes. But in the end I felt sorry for the actors, trapped in the circus of bad script. Poor Leonardo De Crapplio was especially bad as the "Candy Man'. Candy has too slaves killed before him in a single day, yet neither scene makes any sense, and is a case of terrible acting failing in a terrible plot. Without a doubt slavery in the South truly piled evil upon evil. Sadly QT has not grown up, and possesses none of the intelligence, wisdom, of vision needed to deal with any of that. His movies continue to get WORSE AND WORSE and this one is just about unwatchably BAD. The one gimmick he has that is endearing is throwing on a good song now and again. But it's just a gimmick QT. You look old, fat, stupid and irrelevant. Brother you ARE! I saw the interview where QT thinks he is in a sweet patch? No boy! You are all washed up! This movie SUCKS! 1/10 for the music. I won't be seeing whatever crap he flings at us next.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

1

jesterx7769Jan 13, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is awful and people are just hopping on the Tarantino wagon since if you don't like his movies it means you dont appreciate movies. The first two hours of this movie nothing happens, just poor writing and funny ol' racist jokes. Then we have a ridiculous gun fight to throw some sort of action in it where dead bodies keep getting shot in order to create an excess of blood going everywhere.

Leo sucks in it, samuel l jackson is such a joke now to be taken seriously. People that actually appreciate movies will form their own opinion of this horrible movie and not just like it because they feel they have to. I wanted to turn this movie off so many times.

Boring. Predictable. FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS.… Expand

1 of 7 users found this helpful16

All this user's reviews

1

OroiaelDec 25, 2012

If you like Kill Bill you will like this movie. That being said, I liken Taratino's filmmaking to a teacher preparing lesson plans for the slow reader group. This movie has the most base elements and is stock full of his trademark violence.If you like Kill Bill you will like this movie. That being said, I liken Taratino's filmmaking to a teacher preparing lesson plans for the slow reader group. This movie has the most base elements and is stock full of his trademark violence. Maybe, I'm the dim bulb but I just don't get this film. Angry black man taking his revenge on the tyrannical white establishment. Beyond that there isn't anything else in the film. It seems to be one long excuse to spew racial epithets, over and over and over and over. The film lacks any real depth and most of its appeal will be to the type of people that watch police chase videos or scan YouTube for someone getting kicked in the groin. If you have a couple of IQ points you can spare, then by all means burn some brain cells watching this entirely uninteresting flop. Enjoy!… Expand

18 of 71 users found this helpful1853

All this user's reviews

1

galram2631Dec 27, 2012

This movie is one of the most boring, predictable, insidious and "inglorious" western of the last 10 years, and of course, to my criteria, the worst of Tarantino. I don't know what him was thinking (maybe mind-off), when directed this film.

6 of 23 users found this helpful617

All this user's reviews

1

Oscar_SucksApr 11, 2013

Compared to "Inglorious Bastard"This movie is just like sh#t.Killing Burning Vulgarity,it's a genuine Spagatti western film really was. Leonardo did his part great.however,the script the story is hardly acceptable,let alone winning an OscarCompared to "Inglorious Bastard"This movie is just like sh#t.Killing Burning Vulgarity,it's a genuine Spagatti western film really was. Leonardo did his part great.however,the script the story is hardly acceptable,let alone winning an Oscar award. I don't like racism but what the film had portrayed is not only challenging the slavery transaction in the 1800s,but also delivery a contemptuous attitudes to both laws and human rights.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

1

ThomasSmithsonJul 25, 2014

If Mel Brooks had directed it might have worked, because this can only be approached as a work of satire. But it's not funny, it's not sad, it's a dud on every level, a milk dud has more flavor.

Tarantino cannot write romance, what aIf Mel Brooks had directed it might have worked, because this can only be approached as a work of satire. But it's not funny, it's not sad, it's a dud on every level, a milk dud has more flavor.

Tarantino cannot write romance, what a shock, right. But a romance is the center of the story and ( Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington) were both a total miscast. Will Smith would have elevated the love story playing opposite say perhaps Keke Palmer who owns an edge and inherent sadness in her eyes at times but shares the attractive personality of Will Smith, whereas Foxx and Washington were both dull and artificially stoic.

What's more Tarantino did not even come close to depicting the misery of enslavement, which was key in lending any emotional involvement for the audience.

A lazy outing at the typewriter for Tarantino....if you wanna write slavery, shackle yourself to the desk next time because you clearly do not know what it means and failed even to imagine it.

Christoph Waltz and Leonardo Di Caprio both shined per usual and the death of their characters were felt but as for the rest of the cast you can throw them all to the dogs...

Tarantino has proven twice now he can't write historical.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

waynemichaelOct 9, 2020

Cartoonish, simple-minded piece of pablum. WTF ya'll thinkin'? See Just Mercy for a real film.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

0

BartDec 29, 2012

If you like Tarentino, you will like this film. If not, it is a piece of sh*t. It is an insult to history (there was no slavery in the American west), and stupidly violent. Tarentino is a one note wonder, who keeps remaking the same films.

5 of 31 users found this helpful526

All this user's reviews

0

Jraptor59Jan 11, 2013

Uh oh...a film about blacks and slavery, better give it a good review! This movie is stupid. I also imagine some people will think it is true history. Why is that bad (beyond the obvious)? Because at it's heart it is a revenge movie whereUh oh...a film about blacks and slavery, better give it a good review! This movie is stupid. I also imagine some people will think it is true history. Why is that bad (beyond the obvious)? Because at it's heart it is a revenge movie where blacks kill whites, then cheer about it. I think there is quite enough tension without a movie like this promoting racial violence. It is a time when people should work together, as we have in the past, to promote racial equality, not violence. No one living today was ever a slave, and most of the people alive today had nothing to do with slavery. It was horrible and wrong, but we DID get rid of it. Some countries (Africa for one) STILL HAVE slavery today.… Expand

3 of 38 users found this helpful335

All this user's reviews

0

defendrojusticeDec 26, 2012

Poorly executed and predictable film. I can't say I like the idea of a spaghetti western that this film portrayed. They never even had slavery in the west. Overblown and over-dramatic.

10 of 45 users found this helpful1035

All this user's reviews

0

snazzyjeanDec 30, 2012

This was absolutely horrific movie I have ever seen. The lanugage was so vulgar and totally unnecessary. The violence was disgusting and the display of degradation of other human beings was such I left the theater before it was over inThis was absolutely horrific movie I have ever seen. The lanugage was so vulgar and totally unnecessary. The violence was disgusting and the display of degradation of other human beings was such I left the theater before it was over in disgust. Save your money or donate to St. Jude.… Expand

7 of 36 users found this helpful729

All this user's reviews

0

birdmannavyOct 13, 2013

I’m surprised how few people seem to be giving this film a negative review based on racism. The black stereotypes in this film are nauseating. I haven’t seen the film(s?) this was based on, but it seems to me that the value in remaking aI’m surprised how few people seem to be giving this film a negative review based on racism. The black stereotypes in this film are nauseating. I haven’t seen the film(s?) this was based on, but it seems to me that the value in remaking a thing would be to translate what was good about it while giving mind to what could change. Well, for example, just imagine if Indiana Jones didn’t say, “Good onya Flash Gordon et al., but really you were too dry, we’re gonna load this film up with humor!” But that’s essentially what you have here. Not a dearth of humor, but of human understanding. All of the black characters seemed to reflect Candie’s disgusting lie that black people exist to be servants, except, of course, for Django. He seems to be so contrasted by the idiocy of the rest of the African American characters as to be, in the logic of the movie, infused with the “White Man’s” spirit. Consider the people freed at the beginning and end of the film, they have to be told, “Go now, you are free.” In fact, the men in the wagon continue to sit there through the credits and finally say: “Who was that n-gr?” Thank God that being black and a slave didn’t mean being utterly stupid as this film seems to be saying or we would all be in serious trouble indeed as all the superlative black people gifted to us by history would be erased. I think what is worst for me is that Candie’s bigotry, justified as science in the form of Phrenology, goes completely unchallenged--except in the “Me angry man, you die now” sense. The blame for this falls entirely on Tarantino who should never have created such a racist film. At that scene at the dinner table, I would have relished a pause from the dialogue to bring Sam Jackson on screen to cut into Candie’s skull and show the audience the fallacy of Phrenology. As it is, I think racist people will walk away from this movie feeling empowered with knowledge and reason.… Expand

3 of 30 users found this helpful327

All this user's reviews

Django Unchained

User Reviews