Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was no creativity, no innovation. The only worthwhile part of it other than the action, was the German bounty hunter guy who used all the big words.
It didn't do anything more than play into society's dragon slaying urge. 99.99% of men have a fantasy about defending society from three things: Nazis, slave owners, and zombies. Perhaps if they made a movie involving nothing more than a sidekick with a foreign accent, and a cowboy, shooting zombie Nazi slave owners, it would win even more awards. It could be called, "Man Shoots Lots of Nazi Zombie Slave Owners."
Why didn't "Red Tails" win anything other than nominations? It was a good movie, and it was historical, and it involved good acting, and it was moving. It even had one of the three great important factors: shooting Nazis. Are slave owners more entertaining to watch getting shot than Nazis, or was it just that the Nazis were in planes rather than walking along the ground, and therefore less comparable to zombies?
Translation: I did not like seeing the slaveowners get their comeuppance.
Translation: I've lived in some hellhole and have years of pent up anger against white people. Django was a nice outlet, and there has not been that many outlets specifically against slave owners, so it serves a purpose. Nothing wrong with that, dragon slayer want to be. The movie was made for you...and for everyone I've talked to who says they liked it. (None of them were on Citi-Data). It could have been a lot better though. Django could have been humanized more. Most characters could have been humanized more. Remove most of the shooting in the last half hour or so. Replace it with maybe, five people getting shot at the end, and use the time for making everyone more round. An outlet, I don't think makes a truly good movie. A truly good movie elicits an emotional reaction people don't already have, or gets people to think...same as artwork. It doesn't just encourage emotions people already have. That's easy.
I haven't seen it but many Oscars (and other awards) go to what I think are 'not great' movies while others get ignored. The section of nominees and winners often surprises me and I believe are subject to internal Hollywood politics. But who the hell cares? It's just a movie award.
Quote:
Why didn't "Red Tails" win anything other than nominations? It was a good movie, and it was historical, and it involved good acting, and it was moving.
You answered your own question in that sentence (although I disagree that Red Tails was great movie). I'd much preferred the totally historically inaccurate Inglourious Basterds.
I haven't seen it but many Oscars (and other awards) go to what I think are 'not great' movies while others get ignored. The section of nominees and winners often surprises me and I believe are subject to internal Hollywood politics. But who the hell cares? It's just a movie award.
You answered your own question in that sentence (although I disagree that Red Tails was great movie). I'd much preferred the totally historically inaccurate Inglourious Basterds.
Never saw "Inglorious Bastards." Escapism is good. That's the primary purpose of movies...but I don't think that necessarily makes a movie deserving awards. Escapism based movies are so numerous. "The Mummy," I thought was a great escapism based movie. Movies deserving awards I think need to be unique in at least some way. Otherwise there's 50,000 other candidates other people will view as providing better escapism.
I liked "District 9" a lot. I also liked, "The Man in the Iron Mask," with Leonardo DiCaprio, which reviewers thought was bad. I'd view both of them as more artwork-ish. "District 9," was something relatively new. "The Man in the Iron Mask," provided underdogs, good acting, and lots of suspense and plot twists. It was escapism, but unusually complicated escapism.
Never saw "Inglorious Bastards." Escapism is good. That's the primary purpose of movies...but I don't think that necessarily makes a movie deserving awards. Escapism based movies are so numerous. "The Mummy," I thought was a great escapism based movie. Movies deserving awards I think need to be unique in at least some way. Otherwise there's 50,000 other candidates other people will view as providing better escapism.
I liked "District 9" a lot. I also liked, "The Man in the Iron Mask," with Leonardo DiCaprio, which reviewers thought was bad. I'd view both of them as more artwork-ish. "District 9," was something relatively new. "The Man in the Iron Mask," provided underdogs, good acting, and lots of suspense and plot twists. It was escapism, but unusually complicated escapism.
Tarantino movies have a cult appeal, just like Kubrick movies, either you get it or you don't.
Trying to explain a Tarantino movie to someone who likes the Mummy is like trying to explain "Sketches of Spain" to a Rihanna fan.
Hero black slave kills evil white man....yep. Typical hollywood trash....that's exactly why its getting awards or being nominated for them
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
